PRIZES ARE FOR CHILDREN

The title of the post was quoted by Charles Ives, upon being given, but refusing, the Pulitzer prize. He stated much more than a statement. He released a quantum of information in this short statement, about the way we (as a human society) has progressed. Let me explain this in more details below.


The incentive to do a particular thing is considered the source of energy to do that act. Without incentive, there will be no act. If we never felt cold, we would never invent heating systems. If we never felt the need to rise above another, we would never invent the concept of lies as well as hard work. So we see that "incentive" is the pivotal point in the hub of activities.


I feel that this concept of incentive can be best understood in the words of Dr. Feynman who illustrated why he considered prizes as useless entities.







Just like people doing science (as explained in above video), there are two kinds of people: one who seek pleasure-of-doing stuff as their sole incentive and those who associate some reward outside the pleasure-of-doing stuff as their incentive.


Both of them are valid incentives and they make a hell lot of difference for us as a human society.


HOW?


Those of you who have read Ayn Rand's Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged, would now appreciate that all she described ever, were the former kind of people and the kind of society they would make (Galts Gultch) and the ironic question "who is John Galt" simply emphasize the existence of these kind of people as a finite minority. Those kinds who have the whole world in their own existence and find meaningful existence within them-self. This doesn't mean an islander's life at a social level (as it is usually contested by those who fail to appreciate this viewpoint) but instead mean that the pleasure of doing the stuff is the sole purpose of doing it and no reward would ever match that kick of accomplishment. Infact, rewards become meaningless and this is why Charles Ives quotes that a less mature existence on an intellectual plane would prefer reward-based-incentives. Howard Roark's speech from Fountain head and John Galt's speech from Atlas shrugged emphasized the line of thought for these kind of men and the reprecurssion of deviations from that respectively.





John Galts speech divided in many parts to emphasize the relevance of text in present times :)


















































The difference between these two approaches makes the world as we know it now. After industrial revolution, reward based systems drove humanity towards earning more and more rewards for their acts (which made them superior) in terms of land, money power etc. At some points, money and power becomes the sole point of existence. This fact is beautifully depicted in a brilliant movie "American Psycho" (read my review here) where a group of businessman base their whole existence on the beauty of thier business cards, which others appreciate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoIvd3zzu4Y).


In-fact the recent conflict around possibility of data sharing and corporate profit which owns the data is a result of this approach. The meager monetary payments to creators become valid means of owning the data and its use for a certain period of time (which can then be extended from time to time, as per convenience) become (or rather "are made") legal. Recently i interacted with one of the most original musicians from India: Indian Ocean band, and they told me that they have voluntarily put up songs of their latest album to download for free since they want the music to reach out to their intended audience and actually music companies hinder in this path more than they can facilitate it. This is true for not only entertainment industry but scientific industry too. GM killed electric car after the big lobby of oil corporations went against it and layed off the precious work of many engineers who made that marvel possible.





It is also important to understand at this point that the nomenclature which we ascribe to the ideas shows our approach towards the same. "Industrial world" means the world of material production (by any means) more than it means innovation and hard-work based progress. Morality is best derived from texts (religious or some leader's mouthpiece) rather than inventing and deriving it through reasoning. "Democracy" means more towards submission to the new kings (which are now elected rather than born) than the power to decide for yourself rationally. Submission in the name of fear(S) becomes order of the day. Wars and violent conflicts becomes the way to solve disputes and any serious attempts to solve problems in a rational manner (like UN) is sabotaged and abused to grab more power instead. These few actions are the result of the system we have chosen for ourself (voluntarily or involuntarily: those who refuse to give up this system choose it involuntarily)


Having criticized this approach, I must emphasize that I do not mean that incentives are useless. They are the fact of life and any system which asks for abolishing them will be un-natural for the human systems we know now. Instead, what i emphasized is that there exist two separate categories of humans : one whose incentive isn't materialistic (in terms of money, power, praise etc) but just the pleasure of doing the stuff and learning something new and at the same time there exist a majority of humanity which choose to work another way. Since majority dictates the way a human system drives towards future, so we have a reward based system dictating our ways to exist and hence exploitation becomes inevitable.


I do not know what future will bring us but changes are inevitable and i could somehow sense that we are recognizing the flaws of present system and we might shift our gears to a new one, which might be prize-less :)

Realism versus Delusion

The idea for this post started with this video



But this idea goes beyond the business world...it can be generalized to life and almost everything else too.

The basic idea is that Realism (art of identifying objective reality of an idea) leads to a concrete helpful solution than delusion-based-solutions in the REAL world.

Let me explain from my personal experience.

I was a stammerer for all these years and it cost me many things in life. For all these years i was suggested to ignore stammering and concentrate on the other abilities i had and it helped a lot to strengthen them but stammering pulled me down at the very moments i needed to jump off the cliff and get my aims. The delusion-based-solution of ignoring the REAL PROBLEM led to the conflicting behavior where i would go along with an idea just for the heck of it. Lately, i understood finally that the problem needs to be sorted out on a real platform and first step towards sorting it out is to acknowledge it, then identify it in real time, find real solutions, work on them and succeed. My success is a proof about this approach.

But i must also add that realism helps in long run but delusions CAN BE solutions for a short term (provided we remain conscious about that delusion). At some points of times, i believed in the delusion that if i am the speaker, then i hold the stage in the sense that all listeners are idiots. But it was important to realize that this delusion is acknowledged and it just helped to overcome the mental blocks (which are critical for stammering). It wasn't the final solutions but just a "virtual" stepping stone.

Realism should not be confused with standardization of reality where ideas are ascribed definite values and our abilities are judged according to the fact whether those values are achievable by these abilities or not. Instead realism is simply acknowledging the objective reality of a fact however inconvenient it be.

The best example in this regard is the movie "Gattaca" and my review might help you to get more insight regarding the idea i am proposing (though you will have to see the movie for yourself). Here the fact that genetically, Vincent is inferior to others, is a reality but so is the reality that "there is a way out". He works on BOTH the realities together and gets what he wants. The delusion based solutions would have suggested him to strike head-on without any concern to the fact that his genetic material do not match the requirements and he has to do something about it.

As i said earlier, realism is valuable to many other sphere of life including relationships, professional carrier, personal aims in life, motivating others if asked for, advising others etc. Perhaps its one of the most important facts of life.

Field Marshall Sam Manekshaw explains this very idea which he used to win a war in 12 days...

1+1+1+...=1

Recently a dear friend of mine, Atousa, posted "to be honest 1+1=1" as her Facebook profile status. This seemingly funny expression, easily ignorable as a mistake, did interest me at that very moment and i went ahead to ask what does it mean (since i could take out many many meanings out of it). Instead i was asked to put up various meanings i could take out from this expression and I went ahead with some within few minutes, like:

1+1=1

1. a man and a woman in love
2. right hand side one is bigger than two left hand side smaller ones
3. paradox of life like life don't follow strict logic
4.  "to be honest" one has to accept that 1+1=1 will come along this way i.e. dishonesty will come their way and they would have to live with it
5. however high you add up things and people in your life, you end up same i.e alone in life

There can be numerous other imaginative meanings of this expression. Mathematically it might be incorrect, but this expression holds tremendous power in imaginative world.

The fun part began today when she wrote a new status saying "to be even more honest 1+1+1=1" and here a whole new world of branched imaginations sprouted out of last days arguments. While readers may independtly post their own imaginations, i would like to post few of mine which i could come up within 5 minutes right now:

1. power of one
2. read between the lines as in "middle finger salute"
3. singularity
4. After some time, a"+" becomes "=" as in, after some time, you have to conclude instead of keep adding things for infinity.
5. love of being single
6. boasting solitude
7. there is only "one" chance
8. Everything adds up to one single fact, the singular ultimate and absolute truth
9. To transform from "honesty" to "even more honesty", one has to take "one" more step.
10. Add up as you may, it will result the same
11. To add is to fool yourself (metaphor related to "things" in life)

This game is turning interesting now. As i proceeded to another level, i question what would it mean if we replace all symbols with another ones like "multiply", "divide", "substract", and logical symbols of "union", "intersection" etc.

This blog will expand as i get more ideas on each symbol and it will further expand when i increase the series with mixture of symbols.

Please feel free to put up your imagination in the comment section.

HATRED SELLS BETTER THAN LOVE

Even if they remove the video ever, the "idea" will not die...

hatred is a better commodity than love, to sell :)

i remembered a movie called "the wave" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_(2008_film)) which is based on the idea of an experiment called "The third wave" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave) in which a group of students asked a teacher, why did German people accepted mass murder of people by Nazis and instead of giving them an answer, make them go through the process of brainwashing to realize that it does not takes superhuman capability to believe and perform anti-humanity activities, instead one just has to stop asking questions and making out reasons (this is what i understand as "training to be a sheep")...

This behavior is so widespread amongst humans from around the world and from different ages that the answer must lie in human behavior (both as an individual as well as MOB)...

I suspect if our brain is more receptive to excitement produced by violence than the calmness produced by love...excitement of violence calms down the inner conflict and confusions by channeling our anger towards one particular direction whereas love tries to "passify" the excitements to equilibrate the emotional high states over a period of time, which might be counter intuitive to the usual functioning of brain (which is to have data for processing, not having data might be disturbing)...

Also, usually a person finds identity within a mob which is much stronger than when he is alone...it has been repeatedly noted down that in a mob the same person who will burn down his victim alive and enjoy the show, would piss in his pants if slapped on a street when he is alone...

In the context of video, i guess any kind of censoring will only empower this "idea"...rather i would suggest a solution which shabana aazmi gave to shahi imam of jama masjid when he called Indian Muslims to join afghan Taliban to fight against US forces...she said "drop him by parachute into Kabul, this solves his problems and ours too"...How many of these preachers will accept to live "without security" in Kashmir for "thier cause"

KASHMIR

I havent seen Harud yet but it seem to be a movie needed for a very long time now...


Recent unrest in Kashmir for past few months seems to culminate into one of the most serious problems of our times. The blame game of apathy of Indian government towards grievances of Kashmir and hidden agenda of separatist who misuse the idea of freedom to cloak their religious arguments, has grown into serious stone pelting and police firing situations where human lives are lost. I am supposed to have an opinion  and i must clarify i rarely align my versions to official versions of nations and governments so here is mine...


I do not have first hand experience in this issues so my opinions expressed here are limited by that fact, but as i see it, hardliners/fundamentalists are aligning people's anger (generated due to bad political governance over the years and excesses by military) towards creating a strict Islamic state which may easily amalgamate into Pakistan in the name of religion. The "Only" Islamic nature of their demands makes it sound illegitimate from a secular point of view. Fundamentalism turned Pakistan into a rogue state and beggar economically despite having all the potential in its rich culture, heritage and hard working people. Do i want the same fate for Kashmir, NO.

Also issues of human right violation by security forces are valid. There has been excesses and violations.In a conflict zone, this is obvious. When a soldier experiences an innocent looking teenager blowing up his buddy by a grenade, next time he blows up any other innocent teenager without checking properly, which will then be categorized as excess. Some other times, security personals take advantage added powers of immunity from prosecution, to settle personal scores or to get awards and medals. 


This fact is then used by hardliners to instigate general population against the security forces. This vicious circles eat up human bodies which both sides choose to ignore and rather start playing the blame game around the argument "You started it first". 


In any case, a human life is lost and unfortunately human lives are categorized differently based on their affiliations...this vicious circles consumes human lives for sustaining itself... 

The issue of (so-called) freedom is very important here...Pardon me if u feel offended for me using the connotation of so-called before the word freedom, but it feel so hollow to talk about freedom in this context. Text below will explain some more around this idea. 

A minority of Kashmiris would like to have "free" country but fail to state how will this country survive...can tourism support economy?...and whats the guarantee that they will not want to divide further based on regions and religious affiliations, again in the name of freedom?...Leh and Laddhak people never asked for freedom so how will they make a country cut off from Pakistani side by Leh and Laddhak? 


A group of harlined Muslim fundamentalists just don't want a Hindu majority to "rule" them mainly because "their maulanas say so". Their sentiments (based on religion) are as much valid as that of fundamentalist Hindus in Gujarat who ask for India to be a Hindu nation by any means. This is the group i despise the most and this is the group which scream freedom the most, which then feels so ridiculous. 


Now remains the question of Minorities in kashmir. 


Its not surprising that this word "minority" is categorize based on their religion, which indicates the hidden intentions :). Who should they support. Hindus and Sikhs would like to remain being part of India for their religious reasons which makes them feel to have a secure future. They also control a appreciable portion of economy so their demands have a economic "feel" too.

This is all about Kashmiri opinions. Indian opinion is against further divide, based on religious and egoistic issues. 


The most amazing point in the whole argument is the hidden part of "religion" but thats rarely accepted or even acknowledged. Even though Kashmiris boast brotherhood across religious lines but past performance of this brotherhood is so fractured that it seems hard to believe them with any confidence.

So its right to say that the real problems/solutions do not lie in economics and genuine aspirations for true freedom. Its actually RELIGION. Both sides tries to avoid this arguments for the sake of loosing their secular face which makes them internationally accepted as a "valid" party in the argument. After-all in the era of religious fundamentalism "it no more cool" to have an argument based on religion. So the arguments are hidden under the cloak of more "appealing" universal ideas like freedom, democracy etc.

Since rationality is not so popular way of life amongst us as a specie, so its impossible for me to state a solution. Otherwise it would have been as easy as rational symbiosis. India and for that matter of fact any country, do not make sense in parts. We make sense only as a one country. 


Without central India's ores, industries in Gujarat, Maharashtra and south will die of starvation, without tourism in Kashmir, Goa and Kerala, we would have little to show in "incredible India" campaign. Without North east India we would loose the true variety which is the essence of "Indian character". We don't make sense in parts, we make sense together. This reason is not based on some irrational faith, rather its based on pure logic that we, as "independent" parts can't survive by present standards of prosperity. "Genuine" good intentions would have attracted kashmiris over other parts of India and the problems would have dissolved over few generations (definetly by now). We would have reduced separatist support to bare minimum if good governance would have made them feel comfortable with India. Separation of religion from state as a habit, would have had a contagious effect by now and Kashmir could have come up as a secular place. Economic packages are usually defines as aids to beggars and beggars cant be choosers. That is a fault of both the beggars and aid providers. Economical self empowerment of kashmiri people would have had different effect.


Its pretty hard to define a solution now. UN resolution calling for plebiscite presents another problem, Kashmiri demography was changed by Islamic terrorists when they killed non-Muslims in mass numbers and hence dragged the remaining out of the state making it easier for them to win a vote based on religious argument.


Good governance with rational way of judgement could be a solution but it doesn't seem to be possible in coming times :(


So i feel bad to conclude that unless people on both sides of argument adopt rational ideas, its hard to solve and pretty easy to move in circles running along with swords in hands aiming for each others neck.

As I See It All

There is no fairy tale and there is no fairy world

there are only PEOPLE unfurled

some with knives to do the damage
and some with the cuts plus a message

Messages which echo till eternity

With broken hearts and damaged spirits
we make walls, islands, mountains and our limits
We soon forget the lost hope we once treasured
let anger and sorrow permanently anchored

Amongst all this, I forget the basic rule of life

Fairy world is my imagination of my undamaged self
All imagination needs a reality with physical shelf
I shelf up that imagination in me and walk all around
Try to run very fast with my hands bound

And i fall down and realize

Life is more than my despairs and fallouts
Its actually the referee of my boxing bouts
If i bow down and let IT hit me hard
I will never get the HAPPYNESS green card

So i must collect my broken fragile piece

And i will rise bigger than my sorrow
Taste the sweetness of every tomorrow
Because i am not a bloody coward
I may be hurt but i ain't countered

I still hold my image in the mirror with pride and smile back to it

Come next time and i will be here
waiting for you all, reading Shakespeare :)
I will not take these blows easy now
what do you expect me, to bow! :P

No sirs and madams, i will stand tall

Because now i am myself and i am a whole
I tamed time and learnt art of wormholes
through these i travel back and learnt my true worth
I phoenix-ed each time after the damage, my new birth

I made myself more than what i was

And i learnt that things happen for good and bad
but i should only take them as experiences to add
Fuck that cuts of yours you gave me and my life
Now I do not fear you coming with your knives

Because I AM FREE and I AM.

-------------------------

Note:

wormhole is a concept in physics where we can make a hole in time and travel back and forth

HAPPYNESS is deliberately misspelled to emphasize the concept shown in the movie "pursuit of happyness"

Beyond Barbie Dolls

As humans, we make relationships. Some of them come  (so called) natural to us when we are born, but some of them, we make over the course of our lifetime. They makes us happy if they flourish the way we wanted them to and makes us sad otherwise. Happiness makes us feel good about things around us and sadness makes even a grand comedy movie look dull. Experiencing these emotions is directly proportional to the intensity of conviction we have/had. As i see, life is sum total of the experiences with relationships that we had with humans as well as ideas.

For me humans always represented ideas. Here the idea of the Barbie Doll(s) comes up. 

Its pretty, It touches good, can smell good, can make us feel good too. But the "real stuff" is missing.

What the hell is this "real stuff"...

The real stuff is unexplainable in words...its best felt/experienced...

Its the aura. Its somethings which charges the day. It shoots up hormones but at the same time instills calmness. Its eternal. Its permanent. Its a company which understand without words. Its a hand to hold on and a hand worth offering a helping hand of yours. Its the inspiration to "be good". Its the unstoppable fire which burns inside. Its the stuff which makes the relationship go beyond hurdles of testing times. Its the confidence in each other. Its the good face of humanity. Its the strength of the identity of your existence which is shared with the partner. Its simply EVERYTHING...

I am glad i know some of them who are beyond Barbie dolls. Sometimes they try hard to fit in this Barbie world and fail and I hope they will realize the reality of thier core idea of being inherently different than masses.

May the insanity and romance never die :) Amen \m/

Note: i hope that readers can understand that the term Barbie Dolls represents more than just the opposite sex. One of my review for the movie American psycho which talks on the same lines.

Right to suicide

The idea for this post came out from a conversation with a dear friend Lizzie who is training as a nurse, and i must confess that i never thought about this issue as much as i now think which i believe is important to think about.


Generally, suicide is accepted as BAD idea. Reasons vary from religious and social morality to the argument in favor of living the tough life instead of giving it up. To analyze this ideas, I prefer a game which i call "why and why not", which will be clear further down the post.


Almost all religions accept suicide as a bad idea since life is given by god and hence should be treasured. Society wants individuals/society to grow and hence would term suicide as a bad idea. Individuality of an individual give him/her right to do whatever with his life including ending it.


Being an individualist, I will go with the third idea above. But i  would also like to add that, like any other decision in life, one must explore all the possibilities against it. A thorough investigations "for and against" a particular decision is the key to right decision.


Majority of humanity goes through at least one situation when we do consider suicide as an option. Stepping off from the train of "painful" experiences seem to be the only way out. But, is that the ONLY way! This must be judged carefully. This is particularly difficult in an emotionally charged state at that time. But so are most of the decision making times and when it comes to life and death, why not give this thought a chance.


Sometimes, we do ignore our own potential (consciously and unconsciously) and this makes us feel weak. Here the well wishers (family, friends and in general people you love) must be sought to advise (not to dictate decisions!). Maybe they can introduce you to a hidden value which might be useful for you to eject out of the mental trauma. You can always find at least one human being, fit enough to talk to and you must talk to him/her.


In the case of incurable physical sickness (as judged by medical science), if a well informed patient decides to end the pain, i see no reason for anybody else to stop him from that. Either cure him/her by all possible means or let him go off if (s)he wishes to.


I changed my opinion that suicide is always an act of cowardice, thanx to Lizzie. But i still fail to imagine (maybe because i lack first-hand experience of an extreme situation) a situation, whose solution can't be found and it seems that there is no option. To me, suicide is honorable to myself and hence acceptable, only when i break my own honor code for myself.


BTW i remember a great Iranian movie on this subject by Abbas Kiarostami called "the taste of cherries". see the trailer below:







and one more sequence from the movie "Rog"

Half baked siddhartha effect

Past few months have been quite illuminating for me since witnessing Maoist insurgency at India, footilla incident, Bhopal gas disaster's judgement etc. I have been part but mostly a mere witness to a lot of debates, both online and offline. My natural instinct to study the debaters which funds my study of patterns of their mental process (which generated their ideas) led me to conclude about a phenomenon which I termed "half-baked-siddhartha-effect"

Siddhartha,who later became Gautama Buddha,went through a process which starts from starling "new" revelation and ends up devotion of ones life to an idea generated by the new revelation. The process encompasses following steps:
1) observing a new revealing incident/ phenomenon
2) getting curious about this new observation
3) cross checking for existing solutions from personal knowledge database
4) observing that this new observation do not have a known solution to either person or immediate family and friends
5) deciding to find answer
6) experiencing great urge to devote full time to find the answer
7) leaving behind personal comfort zone to be objective and dedicated to find the answer
8) issuing all efforts at all costs to find answer
9) finding the answer
10) personal interpretation of great truth

So now that we have categorized the "siddhartha effect", we can proceed what's an half-baked or incomplete siddhartha effect and it's personal and social consequences.

Incomplete process simply means leaving the process in-between. The motivation to do so is usually inconvenience package which attached to the process. For example, many people who debate about Maoist movement in India would like to do so in a cozy environment. The main flaw in these debates is that they are far from ground realities and should be acknowledged as mere conversations between arm chair philosophers.
Apart from generating a tendency to adopt arm chair philosophy as a way of life at a personal end, this act also have a grave social consequence. When majority of decision makers fall into above mentioned category, thier solutions follow thier philosophy and hence generate more misery in the population concerned. Kashmir is a recent live example.

But then the question arise: "everybody can't become siddhartha" :)

Why not?

Don't give me a convenient answer and don't expect to have cozy life with harsh answers. Siddhartha wasn't super human. He was merely the person who did
what he was after and engages into the dogfight until the last. :)

Inconvenient corruption

This post started with an interesting article at TOI which was mentioned at a post at google buzz...I suggest you first read the article to get a grasp of the contents of this post...


cmon read it :)


ok so Pritish Nandy did a pretty good job in illustrating the problem...We do have a problem and we all know it and most of the times i had discussions with friends, colleagues and family, they stop at the acknowledging the problem...what about solutions?


Within a democratic system, solutions aren't easy because they can't be "unique"...solution must entertain variety which is the essence of true democracy...rationalization of laws (social and legal) and their practice will always be challenged by non/semi/classical intellectuals for obvious reasons (gives them a kick of satisfying their status seeking ego)...A military state isn't a solution too since there is nothing worse than a corrupt military state...you dont have a choice to oppose since you can be shot for opposition...Religion has failed to moralize people in true sense and rather provided them opportunity to be double-faced hypocrites...so where does our solution lies which could be practical...

To seek solution we have to dig deep into question: what makes certain people honest even at the cost of their life...it has to be more than their belief system...it has to be more than what they were taught...it has to be : what and how they understood whatever fact were presented to them...it has to be more about their choices about not putting the pant down in severe situations....


Some people reason that awareness is the key and i say its just part of the solution and not the actual solution...we all are aware of the above mentioned problem...even after reading this article (which i think millions must have read since TOI is most circulated Indian daily newspaper), readers can't claim lack of awareness now, but they will still go along with the corrupt system


why?


the keyword is CONVENIENCE...its inconvenient other way...this is how i reached the conclusion "religion has been the only religion of humanity ever"


So the key is to remove the convenience with corruption...if it is inconvenient to be corrupt, we wont be corrupt...


How should we achieve that...


A very common answer i usually get is by making tougher laws...It does not work...in fact it makes the case worse since it violates the law of "spring reaction" for human behavior...the more u suppress, the more it springs back at given opportunity...Also the laws breeds loop holes which seed corruption...the law to check the corruption in monetary process of any government organization makes them employ a large group of people to check the money flow and it is these people who then takes bribes to ensure a proper money flow to a desirable end which is mutually beneficial for them as we as the asshole who bribes...so u see, it doesn't work that way and in fact fails miserably.


Morality cant be taught...Fear based systems like communism and religion for example, ended up more corrupt than any other counterparts...


We have to recognize the simple fact that humans react to environment presented to them and they will choose a most convenient way to get a most convenient state (minimum energy path and minimum energy state in physics)...corruption is a convenient social interaction path and hence its preferred...If it can be made inconvenient, it will not be preferred...


Without brute force and fear, how can we make humans go incorruptible?


I still dont have a complete answer. I better discuss the answer when i complete it. But suggestions are always welcome. :)

Society

Well this post originated from a discussion at another blog 

Then i gave it some more serious thought and finally got convinced that this should be a new blog post here...so here it is....

What exactly is society and what place should it have in my life...few months back this question came back at my face and stood staring at me very strong, since this time it was my near and dear ones who were part of this question...the people i loved and admired all my life...it was finally time to conquer this conquest once for all...

As i see it, Society is an idea which arose out of need to find security (of most forms, physical, emotional, financial etc). “Laws” transforms this mental (idea) into a physical structure which we then term as a society. This is true for human as well as most of the terrestrial life we see on earth.

All through history i could see that societies were made in the name of kings, race, color, nations, books (termed holy), gods (termed holy), environment (recently) and all the notions that could differentiate humans beings. To “maintain” this structure (so called society) some “laws” come into existence by “common minimum intelligence” (analogy of LCM-least common multiplier in mathematics i.e something which almost everybody will agree to). This is why these laws are usually “unsaid and unwritten”; like most (not all) societies developed with a notion that women are inferior to men in most terms, homosexuality is a sin, marriage should be the only symbol of a loyal sexual relationship and likewise, families should be raised within societal standards and values should be instilled in young generation for the same, punishments tend to decrease undesired tendencies etc.

There is a hidden aspect to the idea of society and that is about laws and people who initiate, makes and maintains them. I will term them “leaders” as they are the ones who initiate the nucleation of society. They could be religiously, politically, socially or just personally motivated. 

FIRST leader randomly decided to be the boss and using his/her superior skills (mental/physical/psychological or social), (s)he starts dictating the terms thus laying the foundations for the LAWS (i would refer readers to see the movie “blindness” to get more insight into this idea).

Leader(s) has to submit to LCM level to maintain his/her position and hence most laws as mentioned above can be found in ancient as well as modern societies in almost same raw form. 

Family being the basic unit of societal system, sons (usually!) take over as future leaders and even if he does not match his fathers and forefathers in leadership, if he can maintain LCM laid down by them, he is usually accepted (example : royal families around the world present to this date) even in modern times. Ladies have found place in royalty only when "they" could not find a suitable male.

The “mob” (which accepts leaders) behaves like a shit-scared individual who is ready to buy security at any cost (freedom, individuality etc.) and the leader who promises to provide that, is welcomed as a savior.  This is as much true for kings of ancient kingdoms as its is for modern day CEOs of big corps, presidents of nations and religious leaders. The leader promises to maintains the “status quo” in the societal structure formulated by previous generations. This structure is made and maintained by LAWS.

There is a very common confusion about laws been divided in two separate sets: Social and Legal. I do not see the difference. Legal laws are defined by constitution which is considered to be a modern product and professing progressive thoughts which would avoid conflicts and solve past problems. Social laws on the other hand are considered to be born out of nowhere just like society. Social laws or better termed as social norms are set of rules which everybody obeys to be part of the society. Social laws have local character whereas legal laws are said to have humanitarian and global character. But i fail to see any objective implementation of legal laws. The illusion of different legal and social laws is a modern phenomenon. None of societies in past and present could afford to have a complete set of “objective” laws (All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others – George Orwell in Animal Farm). In practice social and legal laws have never been different. If a society is made to feel that capital punishment is bad, it enters legal system within few years. If a society is made to feel that Aryans is a superior race, then it enters legal system over some time. Legal laws are reflections of social laws with a time delay 

As i see it, laws are reflections of our fears (We have laws for each possible fear). We say that laws are necessary to maintain peace whereas in effect we actually covertly mean that we fear the changes we might have to face if we remove these laws. 

Duplicity in notification of our fears, enable the leaders in any system (fascist, democratic, aristocratic etc) to rule by making laws to satisfy our fears and makes us feel comfortable and hence they get acceptance to their existence as the protectors.

This “fear based grouping” of humans as well as other non-human systems has enabled them to be alert and more fit for physical survival but also pulled down the majority of the population’s mental level to a common minimum and any attempt to go beyond it is/was usually perceived as threat to own existence.

How about those who dont follow laws?

Can all of them can be termed as rebels?

I would like to elaborate in detail in this regard because this is the most misjudged and loosely quoted term i have heard. 

The “true” REBELS are the misfits. I added the word “true” to signify the ones who “could not be tamed” and those who went on new path out of their own passion (which will exclude the “ambulance chasers” obviously). For example, the true rebel in single mother-ship are the women who did that when it was considered a bad notion, not the ones who “chose” to be one since its no more uncomfortable. 

By this philosophical standard, rebels have always broke LAWS for which they suffered but when fruits of these broken laws tasted good, then “mob” makes them a law instead (since they don’t know anything better to do with them other than mindlessly asking everybody to conform to the new rule which few of them understand). This illustrates why the thickness of the book called constitution expands each year. Sins of past becomes acceptable with time and turned into laws. What was unimaginable for one generation, now becomes the obvious reality for the new one. I see this pattern repeatedly in almost all societies, ancient as well as modern. 

I concluded about a year back that “convenience has been the only religion of mankind ever”. The concepts of society, religion, science, technology, family are towards one end: convenience. It can be convenience of not been alone or been able to do more than ones capacity or convenience of feeling to control others and hence satisfying own insecurities etc. I guess convenience will be the keyword which an intelligent alien life will associate us.

To conclude, i would say Laws (legal or social, to me they are same) and society represent our fears and love for convenience. It has an Darwinian advantage which enabled us to survive effectively, produce in mass numbers and rule the earth but it also has an draconian disadvantage of limiting human mental potential by bounding it with limits (since laws are limits).



Of course there is no better music and song than Pink Floyd matching here :)