December 31st 2010 will mark the end of the first decade of 21st century; it is big, isn’t it? We are lucky enough to witness the changes through a century. We have seen the world changing, our own country changing and most important of all the perspective of the individuals as the citizen of India changing. A lot has been said and written about the technological growth, fast developing R&Ds in various aspects of life, medicines etc. but what is important is that we witnessed all of them happening in front of us.
The year 2010 has been special to me as well in various ways. Most of the people who know me and are reading this post might have thought one or two reasons and are smiling already. One of the most important events for me was the start of blogging. As a blogger, I understood it is quite difficult to write continuously as we tend to get drained of ideas pretty soon and has to back up our knowledge with continuous reading, thus it is a cyclic process. The best moment for my blogs was the post City of Joy as it actually increased my reader base over night. There is one thing I have always experienced that as an individual we like making fun on a lot of things, but we haven’t really learned to take a joke on ourselves. We are growing and I guess by next decade we will learn that as well. However, City of Joy actually led to the popularity of the other posts which went unnoticed earlier.
Taking on 2010 again, this year has been exceptional as far as NEWS is concerned. The year gave a lot of material to the news channels to air the BREAKING reports throughout the year. We had Sachin making the first double ton in One dayers, Sachin again making 50 test tons, Saina Nehwal winning Badminton tournaments on a regular streak, Sania marrying Shoaib, Kalmadi cashing CWG, A Raja giving away 2G spectrum for peanuts, Neera radia a proper political lobbyist, Apple becoming cheaper then onions once again, Assagne being charged for leaking out truths, Lord Ram finally getting a place to settle down, Trains schedule changing because we cannot do anything to suppress the Maoists activities at night, etc.
We complain about a lot of things, that’s human nature and we cannot change it. As per one of my great philosopher friend as an individual we love to procrastinate. We are unsatisfied and will always remain to be, if everything listed above were not there for whole year we would have found out our own reasons to be unhappy (This applies to me and my philosopher friend as well). In this modern age of communication where we have innumerable mediums of information exchange and the velocity of information travelling is very high. The faster an information travel, the quicker it distorts and the residual damage increases exponentially. I am not vouching for the fact that whatever corruption and malpractices have been reported are false, but the inferences we draw and the time frame for which we have our reaction is wrong for sure. As an audience we have a very short memory, it is like a RAM which erases every opinion and inferences the moment we have a new piece of information. I still remember when AIIMS students and staff were on strike in 2006 and the NEWS was over night replaced by Rahul Mahajan’s drug overdose case and after few days people forgot that there was any strike.
Cheers for all of us for all the good NEWS of 2010 and a little bit of introspection for all the mishaps. Whenever a corruption is reported there is a lot of buzz around it and Media goes on a spree of debates with expert panels, which is actually food for the common ma’s thought. I do not hold anything against any working class of the society, but do you really think that people from entertainment industry or advertising or corporate are qualified enough to share an unbiased opinion. On a very different context, we always blame the politicians and the political outfits for all the forgeries, scam and scandals. Do you really think they have enough brain to pull out such heists or they have a huge chain of bureaucrats, officers, lobbyists and a trail of people which are never spoken of?
To conclude I am still not supporting any parties involved in the crime neither I am being judgmental for any one of them. It is just a question to ask ourselves, are we really this stupid that we cannot see it happening around us until one day it airs on National television or overcrowd facebook and twitter.
Just hold a breath before the year ends and think a li’l.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
How it all started..
My first album as a lyricist released from US on 10th December. The album named Shades of Love is already creating a buzz in the US market in Asian pop album genre. However the only thing which i wanted in the whole project was my name on CD covers and i got that. It is a beautiful feeling when people listen to your work and appreciate it. I am new to lyrics writing and still considers that it might not happen next time when I have a new music piece. All of this started back in 2007, when I wrote a poem and one of my colleague who was performing with a Band sort of liked it. He took the poem with him and called me back asking if we can sit together and fit the poem into proper song format. A lot of modification were made on the original version of the poem and what came out was an excellent song(the one closest to my Heart till date). Today I am sharing the poem with you all which actually gave me a chance to explore this wonderful area of creativity.
याद
एक अजनबी राज़ का एहसास है मुझे
इस भीड़ में भी वीरानियों की तलाश है मुझे
फितरतन हर मोड़ पर ढूंढ़ता हूँ तुझे
इन खामोशियों में तेरी आवाज़ की तलाश है मुझे
हवाओं का रुख तेरी याद ले आये
खुशबू से तेरी ये आलम महक जाए
सावन की बारिशों में भीगा तेरा बदन
शोख सी वो तेरी अदा याद है मुझे
आने से देर पर वो रूठना तेरा
मनाने पर वो बात बात पे हस देना तेरा
मुस्कान होठों पर और आँखों में गुस्सा
मनाने रूठने के वो सिलसिले याद है मुझे
आते थे मुझसे मिलने को डरते हुए सनम
बैठते थे मेरे साथ सबको देखते हुए
होठों से ज्यादा आँखों से होती थी बातें
मुलाकातों का वो दौर भी याद है मुझे
मेरे हर पैगाम को रखना सहेज कर
तारीखों की अहमियत का समझाना मुझे
कसमो से बाँधना वो हरकतें मेरी
मेरे लिए उनकी परेशानियाँ याद है मुझे
जलना वो उनका देख कर मुझे किसी गैर के साथ
मूह फेरना गुस्से से और बात ना करना
खोजना फिर बहाने मुझसे बात करने के
यु छेड़ना महफ़िल में उनको याद है मुझे
ज़िन्दगी आगे बढ़ गयी कई कारवां गुज़रे
चलता रहा मैं भी मंजिल की तलाश में
अब नहीं है वो फिर भी क्यूँ नहीं पता
राहों में उसकी मौजूदगी का एहसास है मुझे
This original version went through lots of modification to yield a superb Rock number later renamed as "Teri yaadein".
याद
एक अजनबी राज़ का एहसास है मुझे
इस भीड़ में भी वीरानियों की तलाश है मुझे
फितरतन हर मोड़ पर ढूंढ़ता हूँ तुझे
इन खामोशियों में तेरी आवाज़ की तलाश है मुझे
हवाओं का रुख तेरी याद ले आये
खुशबू से तेरी ये आलम महक जाए
सावन की बारिशों में भीगा तेरा बदन
शोख सी वो तेरी अदा याद है मुझे
आने से देर पर वो रूठना तेरा
मनाने पर वो बात बात पे हस देना तेरा
मुस्कान होठों पर और आँखों में गुस्सा
मनाने रूठने के वो सिलसिले याद है मुझे
आते थे मुझसे मिलने को डरते हुए सनम
बैठते थे मेरे साथ सबको देखते हुए
होठों से ज्यादा आँखों से होती थी बातें
मुलाकातों का वो दौर भी याद है मुझे
मेरे हर पैगाम को रखना सहेज कर
तारीखों की अहमियत का समझाना मुझे
कसमो से बाँधना वो हरकतें मेरी
मेरे लिए उनकी परेशानियाँ याद है मुझे
जलना वो उनका देख कर मुझे किसी गैर के साथ
मूह फेरना गुस्से से और बात ना करना
खोजना फिर बहाने मुझसे बात करने के
यु छेड़ना महफ़िल में उनको याद है मुझे
ज़िन्दगी आगे बढ़ गयी कई कारवां गुज़रे
चलता रहा मैं भी मंजिल की तलाश में
अब नहीं है वो फिर भी क्यूँ नहीं पता
राहों में उसकी मौजूदगी का एहसास है मुझे
This original version went through lots of modification to yield a superb Rock number later renamed as "Teri yaadein".
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
The Hot Curry
This is the shortest time interval when I have posted two consecutive posts. It is less than 24 hours when I am typing this post. So for them who have not yet read the last post on Communism, the post is still open for comments. Most of you might not have noticed that the name of the blog has changed from Chaos Theory to The Hot Curry. The name Chaos Theory sounded a bit geeky and always sent a message that the post here ‘might’ be serious kind of stuff. So it was definitely intended for the persona change of the blog. Moreover last few posts have spiced up the whole blogging scenario for me and a suitable name was always on the list. I initially thought of ‘Schezwan Biriyani’ as a name but ‘Masala Noodles’ is already a name of a blog on TOI and moreover I thought using ‘Biriyani’ might trigger some level of sentimental issues.
I was once having a lunch with few friends. We were all ordering something or the other; I ordered my regular Indian course with Chapati and a non veg side dish. When I was about to eat last few bites of my roti I ran out of the side dish. Ordering a new dish would have been a waste of food and money as well. So I resorted to eating last 4 bites of my Chapati or Nan I do not remember exactly with Chicken Manchurian. What followed was a good one hour speech on food habits, Cuisine should not be mixed, food etiquettes etc. I would like this forum to appeal to all people to come out of their set of rules, try new things, some day you might discover a new taste. By not doing this you are going against nature of continuous exploration and discovery. Remember when it all started there was no food etiquettes and that’s why we reached where we are today. All said but still I have my reservations against Aloo in Biriyani, I guess it’s an experiment gone bad(no offence).
So here it is the new name to the blog ‘The Hot Curry’
There was another reason for this post. Yesterday I found a nice Google application, Google Transliteration. It converts whatever you write to the language you specify and I am not talking about translation, it is direct transliteration. So I experimented with the application and converted one of my poems to Hindi script. Here is the poem for all of you, though I am a bit shy sharing my poetry work in public and it might be the first and last poem I have dared to share but still all the reviews, criticism and advise are welcome.
क्षितिज
दूर कहीं क्षितिज पर आसमा झुकता हैं
धरती से मिलने को लम्बा सफ़र तय करता है
देख नहीं पाते दोनों को हम मिलते
पर हैं यकीं कहीं न कहीं
धरती से आसमा मिलता है
अपनी हर सोच को हम क्यों सपनो का नाम दें
हों नहीं सकता यह हमसे क्यों मन में मान ले
जब हैं पता हमें भी की दूर ही सही
कुछ दूर जाकर तो
धरती से आसमा मिलता है
हैं नामुमकिन कुछ नहीं मुमकिन यहाँ सब कुछ है
बस सपनो में खोजने की अपने लक्ष्य को ज़रुरत हैं
सपनो में ही हकीकत की मंजिल का निशान मिलता हैं
आखिर कहीं न कहीं तो जाकर
धरती से आसमा मिलता है
I was once having a lunch with few friends. We were all ordering something or the other; I ordered my regular Indian course with Chapati and a non veg side dish. When I was about to eat last few bites of my roti I ran out of the side dish. Ordering a new dish would have been a waste of food and money as well. So I resorted to eating last 4 bites of my Chapati or Nan I do not remember exactly with Chicken Manchurian. What followed was a good one hour speech on food habits, Cuisine should not be mixed, food etiquettes etc. I would like this forum to appeal to all people to come out of their set of rules, try new things, some day you might discover a new taste. By not doing this you are going against nature of continuous exploration and discovery. Remember when it all started there was no food etiquettes and that’s why we reached where we are today. All said but still I have my reservations against Aloo in Biriyani, I guess it’s an experiment gone bad(no offence).
So here it is the new name to the blog ‘The Hot Curry’
There was another reason for this post. Yesterday I found a nice Google application, Google Transliteration. It converts whatever you write to the language you specify and I am not talking about translation, it is direct transliteration. So I experimented with the application and converted one of my poems to Hindi script. Here is the poem for all of you, though I am a bit shy sharing my poetry work in public and it might be the first and last poem I have dared to share but still all the reviews, criticism and advise are welcome.
क्षितिज
दूर कहीं क्षितिज पर आसमा झुकता हैं
धरती से मिलने को लम्बा सफ़र तय करता है
देख नहीं पाते दोनों को हम मिलते
पर हैं यकीं कहीं न कहीं
धरती से आसमा मिलता है
अपनी हर सोच को हम क्यों सपनो का नाम दें
हों नहीं सकता यह हमसे क्यों मन में मान ले
जब हैं पता हमें भी की दूर ही सही
कुछ दूर जाकर तो
धरती से आसमा मिलता है
हैं नामुमकिन कुछ नहीं मुमकिन यहाँ सब कुछ है
बस सपनो में खोजने की अपने लक्ष्य को ज़रुरत हैं
सपनो में ही हकीकत की मंजिल का निशान मिलता हैं
आखिर कहीं न कहीं तो जाकर
धरती से आसमा मिलता है
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Communism: The Marx’s way?
Communism – it’s a pretty strong word, isn’t it? Now honestly ask yourself a very simple question. How many of you really know what Communism is? This applies for those people the most that vouch for the communist parties or are influenced with their philosophy or agendas. In fact I could not have thought a better place to trigger the debate then on the land of Hammer, sickle and star. The last time I wrote something, it aroused immense level of interest among the readers and the blog visits shot overnight. Thus it’s a disclaimer that this post is not judgmental.
Communism as a subject of social studies was an idea conceived by Karl Marx and it is a very well known fact. What is a lesser known fact is that it was brain child of Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels in the early 19th century and how it came into application almost 70 years later in the dawn of 20th century. It is irony of the human history that very few of the great historians, mathematicians, scientists, poets or even actors received their due credits while they were alive and what is even more ironical is that we write a great account of them after their death. Karl Marx died in 1883, till then his work was only a text with a theory of communist society. His theory stated that Capitalism will one day be overthrown by socialism as feudalism was replaced by the former and finally it will be the ‘stateless, classless society called pure communism’. Karl Marx stated that one day the ‘proletariat’ (the working class) will overcome the ‘bourgeoisie’ (owner of Capital). Unlike science it is relatively easier to devise a theory in Social Science as you have extremely less constraint that stops you from doing that. Thus, Communism was also just a theory till Karl Marx died and even after that.
So how did it all started, it started somewhere around 1917 when Vladimir Ilyich Lenin started the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. Lenin inspired by the writings of Marx thought of implementing a theory to overcome the capitalist’s undue advantages over working class. When the mass people are suppressed and their tolerance level has reached a peak, any kind of revolution or better quoted ‘ray of hope’ drives them to take the extreme measures. This resulted in the overthrow of the capitalist regime in Russia ending the rule of Tsars. The government was formed but it was not the efforts of Lenin that took Soviet Russia to the height. Like Physics Inertia applies to real life as well, post revolution people were not willing to accept the new policies of the government and it was then the second hero for Russia rose. Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin was the man responsible for the practical implementation of the Lenin’s theory. By force or by will it was the government’s policy that prevailed. This was the dawn for the communism and it started taking its real shape, but the point that should catch your interest is that Marx’s theories nowhere suggested the use of force explicitly in his text.
The other prominent figure which cannot be missed if we are on communism is Mao Zedong. People’s Republic of China, the country with the largest population in the world and only a single political party, this could not have been possible without a large force which kept all the uprisings and revolt aside. Mao Zedong’s theories and its practical implications are well known to the world.
Soviet Russia fell in 1991 as it was not able to cope up with the international fiscal changes with the existing communist policies. China is still high and progressing as they have adopted some theories of communism and a large portion of it added by Mao which can always be debated on humanitarian grounds.
The question here is the framework of communism what we see in the country like India with diverse topographic and demographic constraints is really communism? If yes do we require it? Are the political parties keeping a word communist in front of their names are really communist? Are they really communist?
I conclude this piece with a question for you, just think a bit, is it really necessary to abide by a theory written 150 years ago or formulate a plan keeping present in mind?
Communism as a subject of social studies was an idea conceived by Karl Marx and it is a very well known fact. What is a lesser known fact is that it was brain child of Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels in the early 19th century and how it came into application almost 70 years later in the dawn of 20th century. It is irony of the human history that very few of the great historians, mathematicians, scientists, poets or even actors received their due credits while they were alive and what is even more ironical is that we write a great account of them after their death. Karl Marx died in 1883, till then his work was only a text with a theory of communist society. His theory stated that Capitalism will one day be overthrown by socialism as feudalism was replaced by the former and finally it will be the ‘stateless, classless society called pure communism’. Karl Marx stated that one day the ‘proletariat’ (the working class) will overcome the ‘bourgeoisie’ (owner of Capital). Unlike science it is relatively easier to devise a theory in Social Science as you have extremely less constraint that stops you from doing that. Thus, Communism was also just a theory till Karl Marx died and even after that.
So how did it all started, it started somewhere around 1917 when Vladimir Ilyich Lenin started the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. Lenin inspired by the writings of Marx thought of implementing a theory to overcome the capitalist’s undue advantages over working class. When the mass people are suppressed and their tolerance level has reached a peak, any kind of revolution or better quoted ‘ray of hope’ drives them to take the extreme measures. This resulted in the overthrow of the capitalist regime in Russia ending the rule of Tsars. The government was formed but it was not the efforts of Lenin that took Soviet Russia to the height. Like Physics Inertia applies to real life as well, post revolution people were not willing to accept the new policies of the government and it was then the second hero for Russia rose. Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin was the man responsible for the practical implementation of the Lenin’s theory. By force or by will it was the government’s policy that prevailed. This was the dawn for the communism and it started taking its real shape, but the point that should catch your interest is that Marx’s theories nowhere suggested the use of force explicitly in his text.
The other prominent figure which cannot be missed if we are on communism is Mao Zedong. People’s Republic of China, the country with the largest population in the world and only a single political party, this could not have been possible without a large force which kept all the uprisings and revolt aside. Mao Zedong’s theories and its practical implications are well known to the world.
Soviet Russia fell in 1991 as it was not able to cope up with the international fiscal changes with the existing communist policies. China is still high and progressing as they have adopted some theories of communism and a large portion of it added by Mao which can always be debated on humanitarian grounds.
The question here is the framework of communism what we see in the country like India with diverse topographic and demographic constraints is really communism? If yes do we require it? Are the political parties keeping a word communist in front of their names are really communist? Are they really communist?
I conclude this piece with a question for you, just think a bit, is it really necessary to abide by a theory written 150 years ago or formulate a plan keeping present in mind?
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
THE GREAT INDIAN ENTERTAINERS : PART 1
Remember the days when there was only Doordarshan, there were movies only on Saturdays and Sundays. When out of boredom you even watched movies in regional languages with sub titles. The whole concept of watching Television followed a time table, there were time slots for NEWS when children finished their homework, there was nothing known as Daily Soap, Sunday was the best day of the week. The Entertainment industry has changed in past 20 years and the change is drastic. This change spans across the whole entertainment cloud encompassing Films, Television, Advertisements, and Print Media.
Since the topic will be spanning over variety of entertainment, we will try to address each and every parts in detail, thus this post will also be in series.
In the first installment let us try and classify the Indian Films as per current standards:-
Today Films (By Films I am strictly talking about the Indian Film Industry) can be classified under various heads. The very basic classification suggests films to be of two types:
Commercial and Non Commercial Cinema. A Commercial cinema is one which does fare amount of business at box office and vice versa. If we further try to classify the Indian Cinema we will get following sub categories:-
a. Yash Chopra school of Cinema: - Predominately love stories shot mostly at the locales of Amsterdam and Switzerland. Hero generally wears bright clothes (Red Sweaters, White shirt with Beige colored chinos) or designer wears (Harley Davidson, GAP, Gucci etc.), Female leads are unnaturally beautiful. Everybody is rich.
b. Karan Johar school of Cinema:- This is derived from the Yash Chopra school. Shot mostly in USA(especially NY). Again nobody is poor, everybody is very rich and even if anyone is poor by chance, he does not look like one. They have other complicated issues.
c. Ram Gopal Verma school of Cinema:- Shot without lights. Whenever a film goes to floor, nearby hospitals goes out of stock for blood. Heroes (if there are by any chance) have moustache. Over 60 people are hired to scream while recording. Generally have 5 sentences per 15 mins.
d. Vishal Bharadwaj school of Cinema:- Mostly adaptation from Shakespeare, with a lot Indian slangs. Female leads specifically use slangs. Weird Camera angles, sometime it looks as if you are sitting on a merry go round and viewing the movie upside down.
e. Anurag Kashyap School of Cinema:- Kalki Kochelin or Maahi Gill is surely in cast. Songs are either folk or rock or both. Protagonist is either the biggest rascal or the dumbest person alive in the world.
f. Abbas Mastaan school of Cinema:- Again Adaptation but not from novels but from DVDs. Too many plots tied together. Hero knows scuba diving, car racing, shooting, karate etc in general. 7-8 Cars goes up and down in the movie.
g. Priyadarshan school of Cinema: Paresh Rawal is surely part of movie. There is always confusion. Tom and Jerry kind of climax sequence.
h. Bhatt school of Cinema: Songs or singers are imported from Pakistan. Promos excite kids less than 18 years of age. Script writer is not required. Script is mostly written on DVDs rather than on paper.
i. Farah Khan school of Cinema: This is Manmohan Desai school of Cinema with no changes.
j. David Dhawan school of Cinema:- Slap stick comedy. Almost every character insults the other characters. Songs appears from nowhere and you cannot even guess from where the background dancers came. The Background dancers are same for all the songs only costume changes.
k. Benegal,Gulzar,Nihalani,Jha school of Cinema:- will shoot daily activity of a person and tell us it is a movie.
These are the general categories in which we can classify the Indian Film makers. I have very high regards for Indian Cinema and everything written above is just for fun. No Offence is intended to any party. In next installment we will try to cover the various school of TV shows.
“Kyunki Picture abhi baaki hai mere dost…..”
Since the topic will be spanning over variety of entertainment, we will try to address each and every parts in detail, thus this post will also be in series.
In the first installment let us try and classify the Indian Films as per current standards:-
Today Films (By Films I am strictly talking about the Indian Film Industry) can be classified under various heads. The very basic classification suggests films to be of two types:
Commercial and Non Commercial Cinema. A Commercial cinema is one which does fare amount of business at box office and vice versa. If we further try to classify the Indian Cinema we will get following sub categories:-
a. Yash Chopra school of Cinema: - Predominately love stories shot mostly at the locales of Amsterdam and Switzerland. Hero generally wears bright clothes (Red Sweaters, White shirt with Beige colored chinos) or designer wears (Harley Davidson, GAP, Gucci etc.), Female leads are unnaturally beautiful. Everybody is rich.
b. Karan Johar school of Cinema:- This is derived from the Yash Chopra school. Shot mostly in USA(especially NY). Again nobody is poor, everybody is very rich and even if anyone is poor by chance, he does not look like one. They have other complicated issues.
c. Ram Gopal Verma school of Cinema:- Shot without lights. Whenever a film goes to floor, nearby hospitals goes out of stock for blood. Heroes (if there are by any chance) have moustache. Over 60 people are hired to scream while recording. Generally have 5 sentences per 15 mins.
d. Vishal Bharadwaj school of Cinema:- Mostly adaptation from Shakespeare, with a lot Indian slangs. Female leads specifically use slangs. Weird Camera angles, sometime it looks as if you are sitting on a merry go round and viewing the movie upside down.
e. Anurag Kashyap School of Cinema:- Kalki Kochelin or Maahi Gill is surely in cast. Songs are either folk or rock or both. Protagonist is either the biggest rascal or the dumbest person alive in the world.
f. Abbas Mastaan school of Cinema:- Again Adaptation but not from novels but from DVDs. Too many plots tied together. Hero knows scuba diving, car racing, shooting, karate etc in general. 7-8 Cars goes up and down in the movie.
g. Priyadarshan school of Cinema: Paresh Rawal is surely part of movie. There is always confusion. Tom and Jerry kind of climax sequence.
h. Bhatt school of Cinema: Songs or singers are imported from Pakistan. Promos excite kids less than 18 years of age. Script writer is not required. Script is mostly written on DVDs rather than on paper.
i. Farah Khan school of Cinema: This is Manmohan Desai school of Cinema with no changes.
j. David Dhawan school of Cinema:- Slap stick comedy. Almost every character insults the other characters. Songs appears from nowhere and you cannot even guess from where the background dancers came. The Background dancers are same for all the songs only costume changes.
k. Benegal,Gulzar,Nihalani,Jha school of Cinema:- will shoot daily activity of a person and tell us it is a movie.
These are the general categories in which we can classify the Indian Film makers. I have very high regards for Indian Cinema and everything written above is just for fun. No Offence is intended to any party. In next installment we will try to cover the various school of TV shows.
“Kyunki Picture abhi baaki hai mere dost…..”
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Ayodhya Verdict
Ayodhya issue is in the spot light these days with the verdict coming out on 30th September. Not only on the day of the verdict but rather a month back, people have started speculating about the verdict and its consequences on the nation. TV Channels aired the regular debates featuring the top notch advocates, politicians, editors, speakers and even representatives from Film industry. Everybody in the country seemed to have an opinion about the issue and rightly so as the democratic country each one of us should have a clear opinion and should be allowed to express the same.
As the citizen of India we all must at least be aware of what exactly the dispute was and why the court has not been able to resolve the issue for 60 years. As youngsters we all have witnessed what happened in 1992 when country suddenly broke into series of riots, bombing and many other fiascos. It was a challenging period, but I personally feel that a turbulent period is required in the history of every nation to change the overall perception of its citizens. This was evident from the calm and composure the citizens of the nation have displayed this time during the whole verdict period. The only unrest whatsoever was among the elites, the so called opinion makers in India. The common man was unmoved and was least interested about the verdict; sure they were worried about the consequences of the verdict courtesy the continuous debates on news channels.
The priorities of India as a nation and Indians as the individuals have changed over the period of last 18 years. The psyche of the citizens compared to 1992 has changed a lot and really gives lesser attention over matter of religion, caste etc. The priorities have shifted more to the materialistic and individual requirements compared to religious and national interests. To some extent this is good as in the case of Ayodhya, as we were least impacted by the verdict. The same opinion was also claimed by many opinion makers on news channels that the Indians have matured enough to react on the matter of religious interest and has shown immense maturity by not reacting to the situation in hand. I will say maturity of the citizens is a bit exaggerated here as the same people have attacks of hyper tension when Mihir dies on national television. A friend of mine once quoted during one of such discussions that this generation is a ‘by product of mixed ideologies’, and I could not agree more. Think for a moment that, what is that one philosophy, principle or rationale that you have been following in your life and you understand the reason for that. One point of view that is independently yours and is not motivated by any other source and specially does not bear a western influence.
The same is true for the political outfits in the country; none of the leading political parties have a distinct philosophy of their own. Congress never had any philosophy; BJP has a confused stand as they cannot fight on the grounds of Hindutva anymore, reason the ideologies of the citizen is not the same anymore; the local parties are handful and seriously lack a strong view point. The only political outfit which at least has a clear cut philosophy and sticks to it is Shiv Sena, again I am not defending whether it is correct or not, but at least it has a clear cut agenda.
6o years for the verdict, which is something not unusual for law suits in India, a reconciling result and a confused nation, there is not a single thing that will be unlike India. In this particular section I cannot draw a clear line what is correct and what is not. This is the bare reality what we have to face and even after reading this section nothing is going to change, we will continue to be ‘by product of mixed ideologies’ , Media will continue creating hypes about anything and everything necessary or unnecessary. But sometime it is good to introspect ourselves. Just wait for a second look inside yourself and try to find one rationale that is completely yours.
I have written 750 words, you have been reading it for 15 mins and still many does not know what Ayodhya case was really about and even then you might have a opinion about it, after all we are ‘by product of mixed ideologies’.
To end this section one great quote
“One's philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes ... and the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility.”
As the citizen of India we all must at least be aware of what exactly the dispute was and why the court has not been able to resolve the issue for 60 years. As youngsters we all have witnessed what happened in 1992 when country suddenly broke into series of riots, bombing and many other fiascos. It was a challenging period, but I personally feel that a turbulent period is required in the history of every nation to change the overall perception of its citizens. This was evident from the calm and composure the citizens of the nation have displayed this time during the whole verdict period. The only unrest whatsoever was among the elites, the so called opinion makers in India. The common man was unmoved and was least interested about the verdict; sure they were worried about the consequences of the verdict courtesy the continuous debates on news channels.
The priorities of India as a nation and Indians as the individuals have changed over the period of last 18 years. The psyche of the citizens compared to 1992 has changed a lot and really gives lesser attention over matter of religion, caste etc. The priorities have shifted more to the materialistic and individual requirements compared to religious and national interests. To some extent this is good as in the case of Ayodhya, as we were least impacted by the verdict. The same opinion was also claimed by many opinion makers on news channels that the Indians have matured enough to react on the matter of religious interest and has shown immense maturity by not reacting to the situation in hand. I will say maturity of the citizens is a bit exaggerated here as the same people have attacks of hyper tension when Mihir dies on national television. A friend of mine once quoted during one of such discussions that this generation is a ‘by product of mixed ideologies’, and I could not agree more. Think for a moment that, what is that one philosophy, principle or rationale that you have been following in your life and you understand the reason for that. One point of view that is independently yours and is not motivated by any other source and specially does not bear a western influence.
The same is true for the political outfits in the country; none of the leading political parties have a distinct philosophy of their own. Congress never had any philosophy; BJP has a confused stand as they cannot fight on the grounds of Hindutva anymore, reason the ideologies of the citizen is not the same anymore; the local parties are handful and seriously lack a strong view point. The only political outfit which at least has a clear cut philosophy and sticks to it is Shiv Sena, again I am not defending whether it is correct or not, but at least it has a clear cut agenda.
6o years for the verdict, which is something not unusual for law suits in India, a reconciling result and a confused nation, there is not a single thing that will be unlike India. In this particular section I cannot draw a clear line what is correct and what is not. This is the bare reality what we have to face and even after reading this section nothing is going to change, we will continue to be ‘by product of mixed ideologies’ , Media will continue creating hypes about anything and everything necessary or unnecessary. But sometime it is good to introspect ourselves. Just wait for a second look inside yourself and try to find one rationale that is completely yours.
I have written 750 words, you have been reading it for 15 mins and still many does not know what Ayodhya case was really about and even then you might have a opinion about it, after all we are ‘by product of mixed ideologies’.
To end this section one great quote
“One's philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes ... and the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility.”
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Principle of Duality: The Final Take
The Society
“It is practically impossible to determine the position and momentum simultaneously for a particle as small as an electron.” This is the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in simple words. Louis De Broglie suggested that everything be it matter or energy displays both wave and a particle behavior. The degree to which the wave or particle properties are dominant depends on the mass of the body. This concept actually suggests that basic properties displayed by an electron would be identical to how a person behaves in a larger setup say a ‘Society’. The relation between electrons in an atom or an atom in a molecule should be identical to an individual’s reaction towards society. The ultimate aim will always be the stability of the system either absolute or relative.
This comparison is really difficult to digest isn’t it? Let us pick some standard theories from science and social science (economics in this context) and try to compare them.
1. Energy States
According to Neil Bohr’s quantum mechanical model, an electron resides in its stable state depending upon its electronic configuration. When an electron is provided with the quantum of energy it jumps to the higher energy state (amount of energy supplied will be equal to the difference between two energy states). However the atom will not be stable in this state. The excited electron will try to come back to its initial state (stable state) by releasing a quantum of energy.
Theory of Minimum subsistence in simple words states that “Employer will give its employees the minimum wage that is sufficient for the employee and his family to sustain a healthy life.” If the employee receives more than the subsistence level, the system will shift itself in such a way so as to bring the wages back to the subsistence level. This will involve excess expenditure on part of employee and periodic market and demographic variables will act to justify the subsistence level of wages.
2. Demand Supply bonding.
Atom as an entity is unstable until it is from Noble Gas or inert space of periodic table. The instability of atom is accounted for vacant electron orbital in one of its energy level. This stability can be achieved either by accepting electros or losing them.
In open market a person is unstable as an individual. His instability can be accounted for his needs. This need can be fulfilled by other individual depending upon the type of need. This creates a Demand Supply chain. Ironically we do not have inert space in social world where one can be out of demand supply chain.
3. Theory of Marginal Utility
The Theory of marginal utility states that demand of a particular type of commodity decreases with an increase in supply.
The same applies to atoms as well. The requirement to gain or lose an electron reduces with the process of acceptance or removal of electrons.
These are few theories where we can draw parallel between the macro world and micro particles. We behave the same way as the smallest entity works. The results just sums up. If you now remember the discussion point of ‘The Money’ section, it was commented that total amount of money or tradable asset is constant throughout the world. A similar theory rather better known exists for energy. The total amount of energy is constant in universe. The energy cannot be generated rather can be converted from one form to another. The flow of energy happens only from a higher energy state to Lower energy state. Same is the case with money as well. The Currency flow happens always when there is a potential difference for that flow. All the economic theories are designed to keep this difference alive. The moment this difference reaches a stable state,( which is a very vague term as it does not mean that everyone has equal currency rather the demand of that sector has reached saturation) economists have to incorporate certain reforms to disturb this equilibrium, the Catalyst.
Thus it does not matter what faculty we belong we can always understand the nature of elements and society if we understand anyone of the subject. The same rules applies everywhere, all we need to know is how to add things.
This finishes the Principal of Duality series. I came across a very interesting quote about economics which I think of sharing with you all
“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it”
“It is practically impossible to determine the position and momentum simultaneously for a particle as small as an electron.” This is the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in simple words. Louis De Broglie suggested that everything be it matter or energy displays both wave and a particle behavior. The degree to which the wave or particle properties are dominant depends on the mass of the body. This concept actually suggests that basic properties displayed by an electron would be identical to how a person behaves in a larger setup say a ‘Society’. The relation between electrons in an atom or an atom in a molecule should be identical to an individual’s reaction towards society. The ultimate aim will always be the stability of the system either absolute or relative.
This comparison is really difficult to digest isn’t it? Let us pick some standard theories from science and social science (economics in this context) and try to compare them.
1. Energy States
According to Neil Bohr’s quantum mechanical model, an electron resides in its stable state depending upon its electronic configuration. When an electron is provided with the quantum of energy it jumps to the higher energy state (amount of energy supplied will be equal to the difference between two energy states). However the atom will not be stable in this state. The excited electron will try to come back to its initial state (stable state) by releasing a quantum of energy.
Theory of Minimum subsistence in simple words states that “Employer will give its employees the minimum wage that is sufficient for the employee and his family to sustain a healthy life.” If the employee receives more than the subsistence level, the system will shift itself in such a way so as to bring the wages back to the subsistence level. This will involve excess expenditure on part of employee and periodic market and demographic variables will act to justify the subsistence level of wages.
2. Demand Supply bonding.
Atom as an entity is unstable until it is from Noble Gas or inert space of periodic table. The instability of atom is accounted for vacant electron orbital in one of its energy level. This stability can be achieved either by accepting electros or losing them.
In open market a person is unstable as an individual. His instability can be accounted for his needs. This need can be fulfilled by other individual depending upon the type of need. This creates a Demand Supply chain. Ironically we do not have inert space in social world where one can be out of demand supply chain.
3. Theory of Marginal Utility
The Theory of marginal utility states that demand of a particular type of commodity decreases with an increase in supply.
The same applies to atoms as well. The requirement to gain or lose an electron reduces with the process of acceptance or removal of electrons.
These are few theories where we can draw parallel between the macro world and micro particles. We behave the same way as the smallest entity works. The results just sums up. If you now remember the discussion point of ‘The Money’ section, it was commented that total amount of money or tradable asset is constant throughout the world. A similar theory rather better known exists for energy. The total amount of energy is constant in universe. The energy cannot be generated rather can be converted from one form to another. The flow of energy happens only from a higher energy state to Lower energy state. Same is the case with money as well. The Currency flow happens always when there is a potential difference for that flow. All the economic theories are designed to keep this difference alive. The moment this difference reaches a stable state,( which is a very vague term as it does not mean that everyone has equal currency rather the demand of that sector has reached saturation) economists have to incorporate certain reforms to disturb this equilibrium, the Catalyst.
Thus it does not matter what faculty we belong we can always understand the nature of elements and society if we understand anyone of the subject. The same rules applies everywhere, all we need to know is how to add things.
This finishes the Principal of Duality series. I came across a very interesting quote about economics which I think of sharing with you all
“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it”
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Principle of Duality:The Money
Principle of Duality
The Money
Sometimes it happens that a subject fascinates you to such an extent that it literally blocks your thought process. This happened with me when I came across an article about Money. Though this was not supposed to be part of Duality series, I thought of writing my views about the article before going to ‘The Society’. This does not have any direct bearings on my take on Duality, it is however an interesting topic to be covered. In order to keep the continuity of the blogs (so that I remember that I have to write on Duality again), I am including this one inside the same heading.
The article’s title simply asks “What is Money?” Though as an Engineer or from Science faculty we all had a very brief stint with Economics but we have all come across this question many a times. Recollect what we have read, interpreted and understood in all these days. Can we define Money? Do we really understand what Money is? To be honest I really do not. This is a great point of discussion many Economists, School Teachers keep talking about but never a clear idea is conveyed. The Economics session if I recollect correctly from school is like board meetings where after 5 minutes of discussion everything starts going at 150KPH and 6 ft from the ground.
Now what is Money? The Article didn’t provide any definition rather it contained explanation. Majority of people around us think the Paper Note inside our wallet, the plastic cards tugged inside the card holders is money and like in usual cases majority of us are wrong.
Money: Any Tradable asset is Money. House, car, your services everything that you can think of trading or carries market value is Money. The Paper Note carried by us is nothing but Currency.
Currency: Currency is an accounting system for Money. Since we cannot trade our Car for food grains or House for a Doctor’s Appointment we have currency for that.
Thus Currency is a Paper Accounting system for Money. Thus logically and ideally the amount of currency floating in the market should be equal to total amount of Money present in the world i.e. the currency at all time should have equivalent amount of Asset backing it.
The other explanation which I found very interesting in the article was differentiation between Value and Price.
The amount of Paper currency per asset is price. The amount of things an asset commands in trade is its Value. Value is almost a constant thing and it never changes. For a house the doors, roof, windows, floor are all it’s Value.
The Price is something which we all fear that further spans to economic terms like inflation and deflation. Like Money we all come through terms like inflation almost every day in news papers, TV Shows, Political speeches and many other insignificant places like on a tea stall with bunch of tag holders smoking cigarettes. The student preparing for Management entrance mugs up the definitions but never really understand the underlying concept. As a student I never understood the concept as well.
As per the article: The act of flooding market with Currency is Inflation.
This means if excess Currency is pumped in the market with no asset backing it up is inflation. Price is the ratio of currency and Money, so if Currency goes up while denominator remains the same the resultant price goes up. This is inflation.
Deflation: The act of draining market of currency is deflation.
Now if a large sum of currency is withdrawn from the market the denominator will go high and resultant prices will go down. This mechanism is deflation.
These are simple concepts which I thought sharing with all of you after reading this article. The other articles by the author touches issues like Sub Prime crisis, the fractional reserve banking etc. I think if I understand the topics clearly I will be writing on them pretty soon. To sum up this edition of duality I will use a quote aptly fitting in this context
“The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
The Money
Sometimes it happens that a subject fascinates you to such an extent that it literally blocks your thought process. This happened with me when I came across an article about Money. Though this was not supposed to be part of Duality series, I thought of writing my views about the article before going to ‘The Society’. This does not have any direct bearings on my take on Duality, it is however an interesting topic to be covered. In order to keep the continuity of the blogs (so that I remember that I have to write on Duality again), I am including this one inside the same heading.
The article’s title simply asks “What is Money?” Though as an Engineer or from Science faculty we all had a very brief stint with Economics but we have all come across this question many a times. Recollect what we have read, interpreted and understood in all these days. Can we define Money? Do we really understand what Money is? To be honest I really do not. This is a great point of discussion many Economists, School Teachers keep talking about but never a clear idea is conveyed. The Economics session if I recollect correctly from school is like board meetings where after 5 minutes of discussion everything starts going at 150KPH and 6 ft from the ground.
Now what is Money? The Article didn’t provide any definition rather it contained explanation. Majority of people around us think the Paper Note inside our wallet, the plastic cards tugged inside the card holders is money and like in usual cases majority of us are wrong.
Money: Any Tradable asset is Money. House, car, your services everything that you can think of trading or carries market value is Money. The Paper Note carried by us is nothing but Currency.
Currency: Currency is an accounting system for Money. Since we cannot trade our Car for food grains or House for a Doctor’s Appointment we have currency for that.
Thus Currency is a Paper Accounting system for Money. Thus logically and ideally the amount of currency floating in the market should be equal to total amount of Money present in the world i.e. the currency at all time should have equivalent amount of Asset backing it.
The other explanation which I found very interesting in the article was differentiation between Value and Price.
The amount of Paper currency per asset is price. The amount of things an asset commands in trade is its Value. Value is almost a constant thing and it never changes. For a house the doors, roof, windows, floor are all it’s Value.
The Price is something which we all fear that further spans to economic terms like inflation and deflation. Like Money we all come through terms like inflation almost every day in news papers, TV Shows, Political speeches and many other insignificant places like on a tea stall with bunch of tag holders smoking cigarettes. The student preparing for Management entrance mugs up the definitions but never really understand the underlying concept. As a student I never understood the concept as well.
As per the article: The act of flooding market with Currency is Inflation.
This means if excess Currency is pumped in the market with no asset backing it up is inflation. Price is the ratio of currency and Money, so if Currency goes up while denominator remains the same the resultant price goes up. This is inflation.
Deflation: The act of draining market of currency is deflation.
Now if a large sum of currency is withdrawn from the market the denominator will go high and resultant prices will go down. This mechanism is deflation.
These are simple concepts which I thought sharing with all of you after reading this article. The other articles by the author touches issues like Sub Prime crisis, the fractional reserve banking etc. I think if I understand the topics clearly I will be writing on them pretty soon. To sum up this edition of duality I will use a quote aptly fitting in this context
“The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Principle of Duality
Part 1
The Concept
“Light itself is quantized”, said Einstein and nobody believed him. We all have studied chemistry as a subject where facts were presented to us in form of theories in chronological order as they occurred. We all started with Dalton’s atomic theory moved to J.J Thomson’s Plum Pudding model. Rutherford’s scattering experiment and his attempts to fix the structure of an atom. His failure to explain the stability of atom lead to Neil Bohr’s structure of atom which was later refined to produce the quantum mechanical model. We all have studied the same in our higher secondary school texts. Things which we have never read or even tried to understand are that how exactly it happened. Most of us will never know that all these Physicists were contemporaries. J.J Thomson and Rutherford taught in the same college. Neil Bohr was himself a student of Rutherford and later became his colleague at Cambridge. Major portion of our academics concentrate on theories and what they implies, as a student we never learn how it would have actually been derived.
Energy is radiated and absorbed in the form of packets; these packets of energy are known as quanta. Max Planck derived this theory to justify Black Body radiations though he himself never believed in the concept of quantum, it was just a hypothesis to prove an equation correct. Neil Bohr borrowed the concept of quantum to fix the flaws of his atomic structure and to find out the energy states but like Planck he also had little faith on the concept of quantum. For all the leading personalities in Applied Physics quantum was just an aid to fix their equations. The age old wave theory dominated as it was able to justify more phenomenons as compared to Newton’s corpuscular theory. During this period itself a man stood alone with his theories simple yet difficult to digest, effective but hard to accept, practically justified but theoretically challenging the established framework of modern Physics. Albert Einstein received his first Noble for Photoelectric effect, he justified this phenomenon by considering light to be quantized, that it is received in form of packets (if you remember from your textbooks photoelectric effect is taught just after Planck’s Quantum Theory, but we will never know that Planck never accepted Einstein’s quantization of light theory). When application was sent to Scandinavian committees for consideration, people accepted the photo electric effect but were too apprehensive to neglect the wave theory.
Wave nature or Particle behavior both explained certain natural process, but still there were experiments that time to time favored either one of them. During the mean time elite physicists like Heisenberg tried to make situation even more difficult. Principle of uncertainty in a way helped to combat the existing war between the wave and the particle. Louis De Broglie came up with an exciting theory, the Principle of Duality. Every matter and energy exhibits wave as well as particle behavior, the extent of its particle or wave behavior depends on the mass in case of matter. The paradigm shifted in favor of Einstein. His theory of relativity too stated that matter can transform into energy if it attains velocity of light, the mass of a body is not constant it is relative to velocity.
This was a brief account of our history which is never taught to us as a story. Just imagine how it would have been for all these people to argue in favor of their theories, for the likes of Planck and Bohr, who used the concept to prove the validity of their concept but never really believed on that.
Principle of Duality actually suggested that natural phenomenon can be explained for an elementary particle like electron and also for a human being. We can devise the structure of the atom and can use the same theories to explain the structure of a society. After all atoms are basic building blocks of all matter, all the actions sums up.
This ends the first installment of Principle of Duality. We are yet to discuss the ‘Society’.
Part 1
The Concept
“Light itself is quantized”, said Einstein and nobody believed him. We all have studied chemistry as a subject where facts were presented to us in form of theories in chronological order as they occurred. We all started with Dalton’s atomic theory moved to J.J Thomson’s Plum Pudding model. Rutherford’s scattering experiment and his attempts to fix the structure of an atom. His failure to explain the stability of atom lead to Neil Bohr’s structure of atom which was later refined to produce the quantum mechanical model. We all have studied the same in our higher secondary school texts. Things which we have never read or even tried to understand are that how exactly it happened. Most of us will never know that all these Physicists were contemporaries. J.J Thomson and Rutherford taught in the same college. Neil Bohr was himself a student of Rutherford and later became his colleague at Cambridge. Major portion of our academics concentrate on theories and what they implies, as a student we never learn how it would have actually been derived.
Energy is radiated and absorbed in the form of packets; these packets of energy are known as quanta. Max Planck derived this theory to justify Black Body radiations though he himself never believed in the concept of quantum, it was just a hypothesis to prove an equation correct. Neil Bohr borrowed the concept of quantum to fix the flaws of his atomic structure and to find out the energy states but like Planck he also had little faith on the concept of quantum. For all the leading personalities in Applied Physics quantum was just an aid to fix their equations. The age old wave theory dominated as it was able to justify more phenomenons as compared to Newton’s corpuscular theory. During this period itself a man stood alone with his theories simple yet difficult to digest, effective but hard to accept, practically justified but theoretically challenging the established framework of modern Physics. Albert Einstein received his first Noble for Photoelectric effect, he justified this phenomenon by considering light to be quantized, that it is received in form of packets (if you remember from your textbooks photoelectric effect is taught just after Planck’s Quantum Theory, but we will never know that Planck never accepted Einstein’s quantization of light theory). When application was sent to Scandinavian committees for consideration, people accepted the photo electric effect but were too apprehensive to neglect the wave theory.
Wave nature or Particle behavior both explained certain natural process, but still there were experiments that time to time favored either one of them. During the mean time elite physicists like Heisenberg tried to make situation even more difficult. Principle of uncertainty in a way helped to combat the existing war between the wave and the particle. Louis De Broglie came up with an exciting theory, the Principle of Duality. Every matter and energy exhibits wave as well as particle behavior, the extent of its particle or wave behavior depends on the mass in case of matter. The paradigm shifted in favor of Einstein. His theory of relativity too stated that matter can transform into energy if it attains velocity of light, the mass of a body is not constant it is relative to velocity.
This was a brief account of our history which is never taught to us as a story. Just imagine how it would have been for all these people to argue in favor of their theories, for the likes of Planck and Bohr, who used the concept to prove the validity of their concept but never really believed on that.
Principle of Duality actually suggested that natural phenomenon can be explained for an elementary particle like electron and also for a human being. We can devise the structure of the atom and can use the same theories to explain the structure of a society. After all atoms are basic building blocks of all matter, all the actions sums up.
This ends the first installment of Principle of Duality. We are yet to discuss the ‘Society’.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The First Chapter
Among the various theories i have come across in life, the most convincing to me is Chaos Theory. Chaos theory unlike many physical and mathematical theorems deals with real life scenarios in a more closer way. All our life during studying various scientific phenomenon the basic assumption we made was that the subject system is stable or exists in a controlled environment, which is not the case with life. All the events in life whether scientifically anwered or philosophically explainable tends to increase the uniformity of the system rather increase in the total entropy of the system. The events in life depends on a varied number of input parameters and condition some explicit while others are a set of implicit dependent variables which cannot be measured. The basic human nature always visualize a scenario or a condition to be deterministic or as an equation which renders a definite set of solutions. This might be due to the education where we always have a definite answers to all equation. But do all real life examples sums up to a solvable equation? In most of the cases no! but they are atleast deterministic i.e. with a set of input parameters we can predict the outcome of the whole system. This is where Chaos Theory steps in.
A very small change in the input condition results in widely diverging outcomes resulting in the chaotic system which makes future prediction almost impossible. In simple words Deterministic systems are not necesarilly predictable.
In real life we tend to plan assuming the system to be deterministic and in most of the cases even suceed to devise a stable system. The real issue arise when in an assumed stable system some of the basic parameters goes a slight change resulting in highly varied outcome resulting in total chaos. This is a common scenario and can take place from elementary to highly comlicated setups. The degree of chaos depends on the degree of input parameters the system holds which is proportional to the possible leakage in the system. With all the available resources we try to stabilize the system to assure that the damage is minimum. This is not the challenging phase it is the one that follows. The Real Chaos. We usually assume the error in the output are because there is a flaw in system and it needs to be evolved to provide a relatively more stable system to avoid any future mishappening. We plan for stabilizing the system even further introducing more parameters increasing the possibility of leakage with every new input though through another way which will be undiscovered untill it happens one day as the previous one ocurred. We usually tend to forget that the system was stable if the input parameter would have been correct. In most of such scenario major stress is on planning rather than execution.
We can never have answers to how to handle these situation because Chaos theory itself leads to undeterministic nature of the system , the one which cannot be determined.
A very favorite movie of mine 'The Dark Knight' had a monologue between The Joker and Harvey Dent which is quite relevant with the present context:
The Joker: Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it. You know, I just... do things. The mob has plans, the cops have plans, Gordon's got plans. You know, they're schemers. Schemers trying to control their little worlds. I'm not a schemer. I try to show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are. So, When I say that you and your girlfriend was nothing personal, you know that I'm telling the truth. It's the schemers that put you where you are. You were a schemer, you had plans, and look where that got you.
I just did what I do best. I took your little plan and I turned it on itself. Look what I did to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets. Hmmm? You know... You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan." But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!
Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos. Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair!
A very small change in the input condition results in widely diverging outcomes resulting in the chaotic system which makes future prediction almost impossible. In simple words Deterministic systems are not necesarilly predictable.
In real life we tend to plan assuming the system to be deterministic and in most of the cases even suceed to devise a stable system. The real issue arise when in an assumed stable system some of the basic parameters goes a slight change resulting in highly varied outcome resulting in total chaos. This is a common scenario and can take place from elementary to highly comlicated setups. The degree of chaos depends on the degree of input parameters the system holds which is proportional to the possible leakage in the system. With all the available resources we try to stabilize the system to assure that the damage is minimum. This is not the challenging phase it is the one that follows. The Real Chaos. We usually assume the error in the output are because there is a flaw in system and it needs to be evolved to provide a relatively more stable system to avoid any future mishappening. We plan for stabilizing the system even further introducing more parameters increasing the possibility of leakage with every new input though through another way which will be undiscovered untill it happens one day as the previous one ocurred. We usually tend to forget that the system was stable if the input parameter would have been correct. In most of such scenario major stress is on planning rather than execution.
We can never have answers to how to handle these situation because Chaos theory itself leads to undeterministic nature of the system , the one which cannot be determined.
A very favorite movie of mine 'The Dark Knight' had a monologue between The Joker and Harvey Dent which is quite relevant with the present context:
The Joker: Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it. You know, I just... do things. The mob has plans, the cops have plans, Gordon's got plans. You know, they're schemers. Schemers trying to control their little worlds. I'm not a schemer. I try to show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are. So, When I say that you and your girlfriend was nothing personal, you know that I'm telling the truth. It's the schemers that put you where you are. You were a schemer, you had plans, and look where that got you.
I just did what I do best. I took your little plan and I turned it on itself. Look what I did to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets. Hmmm? You know... You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan." But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!
Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos. Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)