Sunday, April 6, 2008
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Understanding relationships - a perspective
The most important thing in a relationship is neither physical attraction; nor intellect (witty, humour, emotional, thoughtful, worldly-wise etc.); nor nature and behaviour; nor commitment; nor spirituality – it is trust. Not just how much you trust the other person, but more importantly, how much does the other person trust you.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Perceptions, Abstraction levels and contradicting co-existing truths
jyoti: People say that nothing in this world happens without gods consent then why is man blamed for his actions. answer now.
Saket: It's a mix of perceptions and abstraction levels; and the unclarity that results from this results into non-intuitive observations.
jyoti: That is not a clear answer.
Saket: Here it goes. we humans need abstraction to comprehend things.
for example, do you see car as a box?
or as a box with four wheels
or as a things with four wheels, steering wheel, and gear stick
...
or as the mechanical functioning of the engine components
...
or the electron level functioning in the chemical reactions that transform energy and cause movement
...
each abstraction level is correct, but contradicts the explanation at the higher or lower abstraction level.
So, this is understanding that different abstraction levels exist, each offer truth, and such truths co-exist but contradict each other
Now see perception:
Lift a book and face the cover in front you, and the binding to Nayna; and ask her what she sees. She'll probably say that she sees the binding of the book. And now ask yourself; you'll say you see the cover of the book, with some image, with some title etc.
Nayna will politely disagree that she sees no image etc. Both perceptions are true, but again are co-existing contradicting truths.
Looking at it mathematically:
Mx Ty
where, Mx is a mind frame
and, Ty is a time frame
Your viewpoint is Mx Ty bounded at some abstraction level z. People associate with their viewpoint more strongly than other's viewpoints (trapped in Mx Ty and z) and hence the conflict.
Saket: So, by definition of Mx and Ty;
As x changes to be x' - implies different minds will see it differently;
And y changes to be y' - implies your mind with see the truth differently, in past or future.
So, if there is a conflct b/w Mx Ty z and Mx' Ty z' - then that's natural.
Note: i've kept Ty constant
jyoti: that was really nice answer; with a touch of reality
Saket: i'm glad you like it :)
Saket: It's a mix of perceptions and abstraction levels; and the unclarity that results from this results into non-intuitive observations.
jyoti: That is not a clear answer.
Saket: Here it goes. we humans need abstraction to comprehend things.
for example, do you see car as a box?
or as a box with four wheels
or as a things with four wheels, steering wheel, and gear stick
...
or as the mechanical functioning of the engine components
...
or the electron level functioning in the chemical reactions that transform energy and cause movement
...
each abstraction level is correct, but contradicts the explanation at the higher or lower abstraction level.
So, this is understanding that different abstraction levels exist, each offer truth, and such truths co-exist but contradict each other
Now see perception:
Lift a book and face the cover in front you, and the binding to Nayna; and ask her what she sees. She'll probably say that she sees the binding of the book. And now ask yourself; you'll say you see the cover of the book, with some image, with some title etc.
Nayna will politely disagree that she sees no image etc. Both perceptions are true, but again are co-existing contradicting truths.
Looking at it mathematically:
Mx Ty
where, Mx is a mind frame
and, Ty is a time frame
Your viewpoint is Mx Ty bounded at some abstraction level z. People associate with their viewpoint more strongly than other's viewpoints (trapped in Mx Ty and z) and hence the conflict.
Saket: So, by definition of Mx and Ty;
As x changes to be x' - implies different minds will see it differently;
And y changes to be y' - implies your mind with see the truth differently, in past or future.
So, if there is a conflct b/w Mx Ty z and Mx' Ty z' - then that's natural.
Note: i've kept Ty constant
jyoti: that was really nice answer; with a touch of reality
Saket: i'm glad you like it :)
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Understanding Jnana, Vijnana and Ajnana
An excellent excerpt from a great book:
To comprehend the true meaning of the term Vijnana, we shall first break it down into its literal connotations. The syllable Vi, used as a prefix to the word Jnana, is capable of conveying three meanings: special (Vishesh) knowledge; the variety (Vividham) of knowledge; and perverted knowledge (Viruddham). Negative or perverse knowledge is indicated by the word Ajnana and special knowledge is conveyed by the word Jnana. Therefore, Vijnana means 'variety of knowledge' or, to be more exact, the knowledge of variety. The knowledge of how this variegated and diverse universe evolves from one source is Jnana, and the knowledge of how that one source grows into a diverse, plural world of great variety is the field of Vijnana. Thus, what the the seer-scientists are at pains to explain to us is precisely how this variegated universe has arisen from one source. Their explanation covers the study of the forces and processes by which supraphysical energy -- which is ultimately one -- gives rise to this variety.
To comprehend the true meaning of the term Vijnana, we shall first break it down into its literal connotations. The syllable Vi, used as a prefix to the word Jnana, is capable of conveying three meanings: special (Vishesh) knowledge; the variety (Vividham) of knowledge; and perverted knowledge (Viruddham). Negative or perverse knowledge is indicated by the word Ajnana and special knowledge is conveyed by the word Jnana. Therefore, Vijnana means 'variety of knowledge' or, to be more exact, the knowledge of variety. The knowledge of how this variegated and diverse universe evolves from one source is Jnana, and the knowledge of how that one source grows into a diverse, plural world of great variety is the field of Vijnana. Thus, what the the seer-scientists are at pains to explain to us is precisely how this variegated universe has arisen from one source. Their explanation covers the study of the forces and processes by which supraphysical energy -- which is ultimately one -- gives rise to this variety.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
The beauty of negative events in life
Intuitively, negative events (absolute or as-per expectations) result in unhappiness. Surprisingly and quite non-intuitively, there is a very subtle beauty about them that is revealed in time – few hours, few months or few years. Isn’t a human life an absolutely fascinating creation -- full of interesting patterns?
Saturday, September 29, 2007
How to convey a thought
Famous vedic thought (Sanskrit): How to convey a thought
"Saam Daam Dand Bhed" in SEQUENCE
Saam: Explain with LOGIC
Daam: Exploit the GREED
Dand: Create FEAR
Bhed: Enlighten the DIFFERENCE (spirituality)
First try Saam, failing which try Daam, then Dand and finally Bhed.
"Saam Daam Dand Bhed" in SEQUENCE
Saam: Explain with LOGIC
Daam: Exploit the GREED
Dand: Create FEAR
Bhed: Enlighten the DIFFERENCE (spirituality)
First try Saam, failing which try Daam, then Dand and finally Bhed.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Why is obvious so non-obvious?
As humans, we think we are logical, we’re not sometimes. We think we are intuitive, we are not mostly. Mostly we think we are not random, and it appears, we are indeed not random. We follow some order in limited space and limited time – this seems to be yet to be named and yet to be understood. What we are seems to be complex and somewhat weak. Is talking about human fallacies hypocritical or pessimism? Well that depends on your perspective and thought. At least we have hope, and that makes a profound difference.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Optimism, levels of abstraction and perspectives
Given a mix of things, it is possible that the mix could have been created in several ways. Currently, I have a mix - unfavorable conditions in life and optimism. What is this mix – are there really some unfavorable conditions in life that is overlaid with optimism; or is it actually cool life with some under laid pessimism? I’m not sure, but I think it is the former.
So, what drives this sub-conscious optimism despite the “logical” unfavorable conditions? And more broadly, is this question generally applicable or specifically applicable to an individual? One possible reasoning would be the conscious known popular push towards optimism that results in this sub-conscious feeling. Another possible reasoning perhaps would be that I’m delusional about it. Furthermore, a third possible reasoning - that logic cannot be applied to a sub-conscious thought, so the original question isn’t really applicable. None of them are very convincing. Thinking further about this -- it appears that the illogical sub-conscious optimism is due to sub-conscious shift in levels of abstraction and/or due to a sub-conscious change of perspective. What is the bigger picture based on this conclusion?
So, what drives this sub-conscious optimism despite the “logical” unfavorable conditions? And more broadly, is this question generally applicable or specifically applicable to an individual? One possible reasoning would be the conscious known popular push towards optimism that results in this sub-conscious feeling. Another possible reasoning perhaps would be that I’m delusional about it. Furthermore, a third possible reasoning - that logic cannot be applied to a sub-conscious thought, so the original question isn’t really applicable. None of them are very convincing. Thinking further about this -- it appears that the illogical sub-conscious optimism is due to sub-conscious shift in levels of abstraction and/or due to a sub-conscious change of perspective. What is the bigger picture based on this conclusion?
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
The sanatana dharma
Many thanks to Dr. G. L. Bhan (U.K.) for the following.
Me: ...I'm spiritual and not religious and see Hinduism as a philosophy and not as a religion.
Dr. Bhan: Hindu dharma is both.
In reality it is a spiritual philosophy, the most comprehensive known to mankind. To achieve spiritual 'growth', however, dharma suggests a way of life - how a Hindu ought to live, consistent with dharma. This has come to be known as the 'Hindu way of life'. Nevertheless, Sanatana dharma is not dogmatic, nor restrictive, giving full freedom to its followers.
Bhagavad Geeta makes it clear that human mind and its needs are varied and diverse. It states that one may achieve self-realisation through the path of knowledge, as also through devotion. Most human minds have a natural tendency to follow the path of devotion - it is on that path that people diversify, evolving various modes of worship according to their aptitude. When people, or communities, make these practices systematic and organised you have what could be defined as religion within the Hindu context.
In practice, sanatana dharma includes all these. One can pick and choose - all practices are valid so long as the individual lives the life according to dharmic tenets, and remains on the path that will lead to moksha.
That is not all - it is recognised that most human beings, slave to their desires, will not be able to achieve that goal - they will continue to stay in aavaa-gavan - the cycle of rebirths, taking responsibility for one's karmas.
There is wisdom and pragmatism.
Me: Thank you! That is a very clear description. I've been convinced of several layers of knowledge in vedic texts (not just two or three layers that is usually accepted); and though it's open knowledge, it's locked by the spiritual advancement of one; and maybe unlocked in steps.
The vikaaras you mention are difficult to overcome, and even more difficult is to get rid of the inner ego due to spiritual advancement or arrogance of apparent victory over the vikaaras. My simplest possible extract from Geeta - true belief in getting rid of 'aham', is difficult to achieve.
Me: ...I'm spiritual and not religious and see Hinduism as a philosophy and not as a religion.
Dr. Bhan: Hindu dharma is both.
In reality it is a spiritual philosophy, the most comprehensive known to mankind. To achieve spiritual 'growth', however, dharma suggests a way of life - how a Hindu ought to live, consistent with dharma. This has come to be known as the 'Hindu way of life'. Nevertheless, Sanatana dharma is not dogmatic, nor restrictive, giving full freedom to its followers.
Bhagavad Geeta makes it clear that human mind and its needs are varied and diverse. It states that one may achieve self-realisation through the path of knowledge, as also through devotion. Most human minds have a natural tendency to follow the path of devotion - it is on that path that people diversify, evolving various modes of worship according to their aptitude. When people, or communities, make these practices systematic and organised you have what could be defined as religion within the Hindu context.
In practice, sanatana dharma includes all these. One can pick and choose - all practices are valid so long as the individual lives the life according to dharmic tenets, and remains on the path that will lead to moksha.
That is not all - it is recognised that most human beings, slave to their desires, will not be able to achieve that goal - they will continue to stay in aavaa-gavan - the cycle of rebirths, taking responsibility for one's karmas.
There is wisdom and pragmatism.
Me: Thank you! That is a very clear description. I've been convinced of several layers of knowledge in vedic texts (not just two or three layers that is usually accepted); and though it's open knowledge, it's locked by the spiritual advancement of one; and maybe unlocked in steps.
The vikaaras you mention are difficult to overcome, and even more difficult is to get rid of the inner ego due to spiritual advancement or arrogance of apparent victory over the vikaaras. My simplest possible extract from Geeta - true belief in getting rid of 'aham', is difficult to achieve.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Working for success
Many thanks to B. Bh. - reproduced from a private communication:
All activities in life, large or small, get broken into just three elements – and only three ‘energies’ or ‘capabilities’ are required to achieve it.
1. Iccha Shakti: this is the power of ‘Resolve’ or Sankalpa. It helps define the goal. It is required to believe in the goal, and the firmness with which we decide to achieve it.
2. Gyana Shakti: The knowledge of how to reach the goal. The need for meticulous planning. The need to discover the alternate ways, if any, to achieve it.
3. Kriya Shakti: The actual work to reach the goal. Just setting the goal, and knowing how to reach it will not achieve it.
Gyana and Kriya Shakti should only partially influence Iccha Shakti. Otherwise, we will never set great aspirations. At the time of setting the goal, we may not know how we are going to achieve it. We may not have the resources to work to achieve it. But, if we are determined, we will ‘find out’ how to do it, and we will create the necessary action or work for it.
The importance of all three are sometimes not understood – and people focus only on Gyana and Kriya. But without the resolve, it is easy to change the goal because our knowledge or capacity made us think that it is unachievable.
Iccha Shakti ensures that we may need to change our plan or execution, but that we never change our goal.
All activities in life, large or small, get broken into just three elements – and only three ‘energies’ or ‘capabilities’ are required to achieve it.
1. Iccha Shakti: this is the power of ‘Resolve’ or Sankalpa. It helps define the goal. It is required to believe in the goal, and the firmness with which we decide to achieve it.
2. Gyana Shakti: The knowledge of how to reach the goal. The need for meticulous planning. The need to discover the alternate ways, if any, to achieve it.
3. Kriya Shakti: The actual work to reach the goal. Just setting the goal, and knowing how to reach it will not achieve it.
Gyana and Kriya Shakti should only partially influence Iccha Shakti. Otherwise, we will never set great aspirations. At the time of setting the goal, we may not know how we are going to achieve it. We may not have the resources to work to achieve it. But, if we are determined, we will ‘find out’ how to do it, and we will create the necessary action or work for it.
The importance of all three are sometimes not understood – and people focus only on Gyana and Kriya. But without the resolve, it is easy to change the goal because our knowledge or capacity made us think that it is unachievable.
Iccha Shakti ensures that we may need to change our plan or execution, but that we never change our goal.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Eleven attributes for success
Many thanks to B. Bh. for sharing this with me. I have been very fortunate to have been explained the eleven attributes for success according to Hindu scriptures (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_scriptures); such that this list of eleven attributes is 'complete' - nothing can be added or removed, meaningfully.
- Shraddhaam – “Faith. Faith in your goal. Faith in yourself. Faith in your mentor. Faith in your path .. if you believe in it, problems are challenges to overcome, - if you don’t believe in it, problems are obstacles to deter you.”
- Medhaam – “Memory. To keep your goal in mind. To remember your experiences. Knowledge – because knowledge exists only if you remember.”
- Yasha – “Fame. To open doors and opportunities. To create partnerships and alliances. To foster trust and confidence. To use a path which will not sully the name.”
- Pragyaam – “Intelligence. Common sense. To unravel complex tasks into simple rules. To understand beyond the perception of senses. To apply knowledge, differentiate between right and wrong, correct and incorrect. To bridge the past (experience), with the future (aspiration).”
- Vidyaam – “Education. Education is the experience of others in a structured form. To use it to gain time, and not require to make mistakes in order to learn.”
- Buddhim – “Rationality. Capacity to think (as opposed to intelligence). Capacity to focus. Create knowledge. Capacity to learn.”
- Shriyam – “Resources. Ability to create resources. Ability to manage them. Whether it is Wealth, manpower, materials, beauty, charm… whatever is required for fulfillment of the goal.”
- Balam – “Strength and energy. Capacity to carry out the tasks needed to reach the goal.”
- Tej – “Enthusiasm, brilliance, inspiration – leading to persistence and consistence.”
- Aayushyam – “Longevity, availability of time to reach the goal. Time management.”
- Aarogyam – “Good health … more literally, absence of sickness or other obstacle in the path of success. Doing what is required to keep fit – for absence of fitness delays achievement of goals.”
The Prathna and the full shloka thus is:
Vidyaam Buddhim Shriyam Balam,
Tej Aayushyam Aarogyam
Dehi may Havya-vahana.
(the last line being, ‘O chariot of gold (fire), please give me these attributes’)
Monday, October 9, 2006
States of mind
Reflective: When the thought reflects back from the mental crust.
Argumentative: When the thought provokes thought(s) and if found contradicting with personal experiences or known knowledge, is quickly rejected by arguments.
Acceptance: When there is 100% acceptance of the thought, either due to logical deduction or much more strongly, due to trust, even when it may contradict known truths.
Adhyatm requires acceptance.
Argumentative: When the thought provokes thought(s) and if found contradicting with personal experiences or known knowledge, is quickly rejected by arguments.
Acceptance: When there is 100% acceptance of the thought, either due to logical deduction or much more strongly, due to trust, even when it may contradict known truths.
Adhyatm requires acceptance.
The outer and inner ego
The outer ego is the obvious one – the one due to vikaras; or rarely due to arrogance due to absence of vikaras; and further rarely due to arrogance due to perceived lack of arrogance.
The inner ego is difficult one, and is due to being at nth step of understanding (adhyatm) and when looking down upon < n steps.
The acid test for both is to clone yourself as-is and think how comfortable or uncomfortable you feel with yourself.
(Thanks to B. Bh.)
The inner ego is difficult one, and is due to being at nth step of understanding (adhyatm) and when looking down upon < n steps.
The acid test for both is to clone yourself as-is and think how comfortable or uncomfortable you feel with yourself.
(Thanks to B. Bh.)
Wednesday, August 9, 2006
Programming languages
Reading the Cell technology documentation got me thinking about abstraction levels in programming languages. C vs. Java is the popular example; let us extend our view and consider Assembly vs. C vs. Java vs. .NET. (Orthogonal to productivity or higher abstraction levels is performance, which we don’t consider in this discussion for sake of simplicity.) (Our definition of productivity in the context of programming languages is development ease provided by the language itself, excluding, for example, the use of tools like IDEs).
Assembly is arguably at the lowest level of abstraction from a software expression point of view. C is relatively better, i.e. provides relatively higher abstractions – abstraction in the base language (for example, c = a+b vs. add c,a,b. The former is more intuitive), with subroutines (also good from a software engineering viewpoint as it provides better modularity), with a rich set of standard libraries etc. Java goes further – better abstraction in the base language (for example, Java threads objects vs. threads in C), with Object Oriented paradigm abstraction, automated memory management (no need for programmer to worry about mallocs/frees is likely stripping out an aspect and automating it by runtime features – very nice), a very rich set of standard libraries etc. The Just-in-Time compiler is fascinating technology. However, it solely exists for performance, not for productivity, which is our current focus. Aha, what about virtual machine abstraction? Virtual Machines as a general concept are fascinating things; however, in the current context, specifically, provide deploy-time ease (write-once-read-anywhere characteristic that stems from VM concept alleviates the need to recompile applications when moving to different platforms) and arguably, no development ease or productivity. So, platform-neutrality provided by Java technology is cool, but does not add to development productivity.
Moving onto the .NET platform, the main programming language for it, i.e. C# adds some syntactic sugar but no significant abstractions beyond the Java language. However, the .NET platform adds a significant abstraction when compared to the Java platform – language-neutrality. Our discussion is about programming languages and perhaps the reason why several languages exist rather than one unifying language, beyond the obvious temporal evolution, is perhaps because expression maybe optimised by some language for some problem domain. So, language-neutrality allows one to develop a unit of software in the most suitable language, and mix it with other units of software, possibly written in different languages by same or different person. This is a macro-level mix-n-match in the .NET platform. Additionally, languages like C# 3.0 are likely to allow micro-level mix-n-match with a hybrid of imperative and functional semantics. A philosophical question comes to mind for micro-level mix-n-match – does this improve or worsen complexity? A pragmatic question comes to mind for macro-level mix-n-match – do we have skills base to develop and support n languages in a given team? Since, both micro-level and macro-level mix-n-match are optional, and not mandatory aspect, they must be good things?
In imperative programming languages, ignoring the memory management aspect, programs are essentially linear sequence of instructions to be executed or one of the two control blocks – conditionals (branches) or loops (backward-branches). All other abstractions – like subroutines, OO, etc. maybe optionally added on top. The core set is linear sequence, conditional or loop. Additionally, we have non-imperative programming languages – declarative, functional, logic-based etc. which are outside the scope of this append, but valid for our productivity comparison; however, my understanding of programming languages is limited to make such a comparison. Beyond a technical productivity comparison, it is widely accepted these are niche languages and the skills base is far smaller than imperative counterparts.
Assembly is arguably at the lowest level of abstraction from a software expression point of view. C is relatively better, i.e. provides relatively higher abstractions – abstraction in the base language (for example, c = a+b vs. add c,a,b. The former is more intuitive), with subroutines (also good from a software engineering viewpoint as it provides better modularity), with a rich set of standard libraries etc. Java goes further – better abstraction in the base language (for example, Java threads objects vs. threads in C), with Object Oriented paradigm abstraction, automated memory management (no need for programmer to worry about mallocs/frees is likely stripping out an aspect and automating it by runtime features – very nice), a very rich set of standard libraries etc. The Just-in-Time compiler is fascinating technology. However, it solely exists for performance, not for productivity, which is our current focus. Aha, what about virtual machine abstraction? Virtual Machines as a general concept are fascinating things; however, in the current context, specifically, provide deploy-time ease (write-once-read-anywhere characteristic that stems from VM concept alleviates the need to recompile applications when moving to different platforms) and arguably, no development ease or productivity. So, platform-neutrality provided by Java technology is cool, but does not add to development productivity.
Moving onto the .NET platform, the main programming language for it, i.e. C# adds some syntactic sugar but no significant abstractions beyond the Java language. However, the .NET platform adds a significant abstraction when compared to the Java platform – language-neutrality. Our discussion is about programming languages and perhaps the reason why several languages exist rather than one unifying language, beyond the obvious temporal evolution, is perhaps because expression maybe optimised by some language for some problem domain. So, language-neutrality allows one to develop a unit of software in the most suitable language, and mix it with other units of software, possibly written in different languages by same or different person. This is a macro-level mix-n-match in the .NET platform. Additionally, languages like C# 3.0 are likely to allow micro-level mix-n-match with a hybrid of imperative and functional semantics. A philosophical question comes to mind for micro-level mix-n-match – does this improve or worsen complexity? A pragmatic question comes to mind for macro-level mix-n-match – do we have skills base to develop and support n languages in a given team? Since, both micro-level and macro-level mix-n-match are optional, and not mandatory aspect, they must be good things?
In imperative programming languages, ignoring the memory management aspect, programs are essentially linear sequence of instructions to be executed or one of the two control blocks – conditionals (branches) or loops (backward-branches). All other abstractions – like subroutines, OO, etc. maybe optionally added on top. The core set is linear sequence, conditional or loop. Additionally, we have non-imperative programming languages – declarative, functional, logic-based etc. which are outside the scope of this append, but valid for our productivity comparison; however, my understanding of programming languages is limited to make such a comparison. Beyond a technical productivity comparison, it is widely accepted these are niche languages and the skills base is far smaller than imperative counterparts.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Levels of abstraction
Several times I have felt that we have a big fundamental problem re: ‘levels of abstraction’. I have experienced it in communication using natural/formal languages, writing/designing software and in personal relationships. It appears that we not only have the obvious problem of two people with different levels of abstraction for a given thought at a given time, but also the fact that our intuitive understanding of ‘levels of abstraction’ is ‘discrete’ as opposed to ‘continuous’, which is more likely to be the reality.
What I mean by discrete vs. continuous is perhaps best expressed by a simple example: thinking about integral pairs that satisfy ‘y=x’ vs. thinking about a straight line on a graph.
For example, we can see a car as 1) a box, or 2) a box with glass windows, 3) ... with steering wheel, brakes, gears etc. …n) (further deeper physical/mechanical view) m) (further deeper atomic view) etc. In all cases above we have discrete views. How should we learn to think about the continuity and furthermore, how should we express it?
Furthermore, discrete ‘is an abstraction for’ continuous. So talking about continuous abstractions equates to not-so-abstract abstractions. Hmm... total nonsense?
Versatility with levels of abstractions creates beauty, for example -- a painting that appears something when seen 10 feet away, something else, much richer and finer, when seen from a foot and something else yet again when seen closely; or a musical note with different pitches; or a relationship between a Father and a Son, where the father can be a Father or a Friend. Fractal nature of Nature?
What I mean by discrete vs. continuous is perhaps best expressed by a simple example: thinking about integral pairs that satisfy ‘y=x’ vs. thinking about a straight line on a graph.
For example, we can see a car as 1) a box, or 2) a box with glass windows, 3) ... with steering wheel, brakes, gears etc. …n) (further deeper physical/mechanical view) m) (further deeper atomic view) etc. In all cases above we have discrete views. How should we learn to think about the continuity and furthermore, how should we express it?
Furthermore, discrete ‘is an abstraction for’ continuous. So talking about continuous abstractions equates to not-so-abstract abstractions. Hmm... total nonsense?
Versatility with levels of abstractions creates beauty, for example -- a painting that appears something when seen 10 feet away, something else, much richer and finer, when seen from a foot and something else yet again when seen closely; or a musical note with different pitches; or a relationship between a Father and a Son, where the father can be a Father or a Friend. Fractal nature of Nature?
Typo!
Thanks to Megha for letting me know.
I have a typo in the blog url - 'adyathm' should be 'adhyatm or adhyātma'.
My simple understanding of the term ‘adhyātma' is non-materialism or spiritual and is an antonym for 'bhautik or bhautika' or materialism. Both words come from Sanskrit language and are also present in Hindi language.
Thursday, June 1, 2006
State of the World vs. State of the Mind and the Middle Path
This is inspired by the comments to my first entry by Rashmi and conversations with Marisa and Pulkit. I didn’t quite understand the comments fully made by Rashmi at that time, since I was thinking in a different context in my first post. It is little abstract, in order to avoid diluting the real thing. There is some noise though.
State of the World vs. State of the Mind and the Middle Path
So, how can we make a contribution to this world? The obvious first thought is to change the state of the world. Another school of thought is to change the state of the mind. Yet another is ‘I don’t care’. Perhaps, the best one, in my mind, is the middle path between the first two.
The first one (Logic): After some thought, we quickly realise that this is difficult thing to do for individuals and perhaps even more difficult to assess. The amount of influence we have as an individual to change the state of the world is limited; but certainly, some positive, how-so-ever small changes can be made. Very temporal.
The second one (Spiritual): Without much thought, we quickly realise that this is difficult thing to do. But, unlike the first, the amount of influence we have as an individual to change the state of the mind is complete and absolute.
(Some interesting noise: I think there are domains where logic is not applicable, and when applied leads to misleading, but intuitive thoughts or worse, chaos. So, if we accept this then, we must realise that there will be things that we don’t understand at any given time; a) which someone else may have a better understanding at that given time, or b) we may understand it better in some other time (past or future)).
The third one (Ignorance is bliss): This viewpoint is fine. It may or is likely to change sometime in future, which is good. (Some interesting noise: If ignorance is bliss, why do we seek knowledge? – by someone).
The last one (Borrowed from Buddhism, in particular, Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's interpretation of it): Why Middle? Is it because I couldn’t make up my mind? No. The answer is little vague – Consider two things.
a) ‘Nature has better imagination than humans’ (by someone famous, prob. Feynman).
b) I was recently told that Buddha tried a simple experiment in quest for happiness – he ate lots and lots of food, but didn’t find happiness; he tried no or very little food for several days and didn’t find happiness. But the middle path, created by nature, gave most happiness.
A middle path that aims to positively change the state of the world and the state of the mind, should create a mind that is least surprised by negative changes in the state of the world or the state of the mind, as it benefits from the best-of-both and allows for mutual-compensation. By least surprised, I mean least surprised by noise.
The easy bit - that describes the middle path, is done. The difficult bit is me absorbing the idea, more so, following it and even more - assessing it. It also appears that there is little conscious effort that can be made to absorb or follow it, assessment seems un-necessary. If so, then this reduces to a sub- conscious thought.
What’s the point of this blog entry? The point is not to convince you something is good or better, but to simply put something in your sub- conscious, which by reading this has already happened (reminds me of the ‘Don’t think of Pink Elephant’ that someone recently mentioned to me!).
State of the World vs. State of the Mind and the Middle Path
So, how can we make a contribution to this world? The obvious first thought is to change the state of the world. Another school of thought is to change the state of the mind. Yet another is ‘I don’t care’. Perhaps, the best one, in my mind, is the middle path between the first two.
The first one (Logic): After some thought, we quickly realise that this is difficult thing to do for individuals and perhaps even more difficult to assess. The amount of influence we have as an individual to change the state of the world is limited; but certainly, some positive, how-so-ever small changes can be made. Very temporal.
The second one (Spiritual): Without much thought, we quickly realise that this is difficult thing to do. But, unlike the first, the amount of influence we have as an individual to change the state of the mind is complete and absolute.
(Some interesting noise: I think there are domains where logic is not applicable, and when applied leads to misleading, but intuitive thoughts or worse, chaos. So, if we accept this then, we must realise that there will be things that we don’t understand at any given time; a) which someone else may have a better understanding at that given time, or b) we may understand it better in some other time (past or future)).
The third one (Ignorance is bliss): This viewpoint is fine. It may or is likely to change sometime in future, which is good. (Some interesting noise: If ignorance is bliss, why do we seek knowledge? – by someone).
The last one (Borrowed from Buddhism, in particular, Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's interpretation of it): Why Middle? Is it because I couldn’t make up my mind? No. The answer is little vague – Consider two things.
a) ‘Nature has better imagination than humans’ (by someone famous, prob. Feynman).
b) I was recently told that Buddha tried a simple experiment in quest for happiness – he ate lots and lots of food, but didn’t find happiness; he tried no or very little food for several days and didn’t find happiness. But the middle path, created by nature, gave most happiness.
A middle path that aims to positively change the state of the world and the state of the mind, should create a mind that is least surprised by negative changes in the state of the world or the state of the mind, as it benefits from the best-of-both and allows for mutual-compensation. By least surprised, I mean least surprised by noise.
The easy bit - that describes the middle path, is done. The difficult bit is me absorbing the idea, more so, following it and even more - assessing it. It also appears that there is little conscious effort that can be made to absorb or follow it, assessment seems un-necessary. If so, then this reduces to a sub- conscious thought.
What’s the point of this blog entry? The point is not to convince you something is good or better, but to simply put something in your sub- conscious, which by reading this has already happened (reminds me of the ‘Don’t think of Pink Elephant’ that someone recently mentioned to me!).
Friday, May 12, 2006
The mystical twenty year window
I just noticed a pattern amongst some very successful people and organizations – there is a twenty year window from the first success and beginning of the peak, for example, Microsoft or Infosys. Obviously, this is purely a speculation, but with some basis :). Furthermore, towards the end of this first twenty year window or so, the passions work towards another window – most likely by completely reinventing one-self or the organization, perhaps not the first time, but this is most significant re-invention. This is incredibly difficult, but perhaps most satisfying, when successful.
One abstraction for this would find something very reassuring about number 2, than number 1 or 3 or some other number – perhaps due to ‘Law of Diminishing Returns’. Or maybe due to ‘The Power of Two Random Choices’, which doesn’t directly fit, but is somewhat connected.
One abstraction for this would find something very reassuring about number 2, than number 1 or 3 or some other number – perhaps due to ‘Law of Diminishing Returns’. Or maybe due to ‘The Power of Two Random Choices’, which doesn’t directly fit, but is somewhat connected.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Frames of reference
We all accept the three dimensions of space and the fourth of time. Naturally, it appears that the dimension or frame of reference of time contains the three dimensions of space as a composite. What puzzles me is the possibility of another frame of reference – of mind. If you accept it, then the next question is whether it contains frame of reference of time or vice-versa. And, extending this doubt to an extreme, and putting it more generally, is it possible that these two frames of reference are - uniquely - mutually-recursive? For example, you know the current time or some notion of time, because of your mind, that can think about it (time contained by mind) and you are likely to change your mind about something, sometime (mind contained by time)? Mutual recursion poses an interesting problem - for it leads to chaos. This begs the question whether the chaos could possibly be true, or is simply beyond our comprehension, to even reason about it being true?
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Vikaras
Something that has always stuck with me and something that I learned in early years, was the inability of bhautik humans to control our indriyas and the inability to fight the vikaras - Kam (sexual desires), Krodh (Anger), Moh (Materialism), Maya (Relationships), Aalysa (Laziness) and Pramad (Self importance). Later on, somewhere else I read a story where a learned-being who happened to have mastered his indriyas and resist all of the above vikaras. One day God decided to take his test, and tempted him to give into the vikaras, one by one, in a series of tests. At each test, the learned-being truly passed God’s test. After the final test, God disguised himself/herself as an ordinary person and met him. He told God about the series of incidents that had occurred today, boasting how he successfully managed to resist all temptations. God smiled. The learned-being had truly resisted all temptations, all but, the arrogance of success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
