I need to go from point A to point B. There is mode ONE which takes t1 time and there is mode TWO which takes t2 time. t1 is half of t2. The cost of ONE is equal to cost of TWO. Mode ONE and TWO come when they please - aka they are not running in fixed schedules.
I have reached point A. After waiting for 3 mins 30 seconds, i see mode TWO coming. What should i do? Should i skip this bus and wait for the mode ONE to come but what is the guarantee that my waiting time is less than (t2 minus t1). Or should i board this mode TWO and take twice time than it should ideally take.
Such is the complex mathematics of our daily lives. Humanity was never simple from day1. There are so many problems that we encounter like the above one. Generally they are taken care of by role play. Brain takes two roles, each role in favour of one mode and they quarrel. No wonder my brain is tired of quarreling with itself. In the end i think who wins is decided by whether i am left brained or right brained. It is specifically worse for Gemini who are gifted with these two mindedness.
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot!
The world forgetting, by the world forgot.
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!
Each pray'r accepted, and each wish resign'd"
-Alexander Pope
Showing posts with label 2bnot2b. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2bnot2b. Show all posts
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Saturday, June 21, 2008
On Godse, Gandhi and Hindutva
I started reading Offstumped, a blog where people post analysis of Indian politics and day to day activities and if the link is here, it means i like it.
On the discussion page, someone posted a link to Godse's court plea when he was put on trial on the charges of killing Gandhi. It can be downloaded from here : http://www.geocities.com/hindu-rastra/soh.html?menu.html&1
Congress banned Godse's plea as it was very accurate and showed the weaknesses of Congress. Godse was an intelligent man with a clear rationale on why he was killing Gandhi and he justified it very well. Even the judge who presided over the hearing was impressed. The article in the link above was written by a fellow who was also set on trial but got life transportation instead of death. It is to be noted that Godse never denied that he had killed Gandhi. However he denied all the other charges put forth against him. He faught his own defense and won it.
Many historians claim that Godse by killing Gandhi has immortalized him. Godse's defense contains some good analysis of where Gandhi went wrong. But again he is also biased when it comes to it. I would like to look at Gandhi from sociological perspective. Gandhi tried very hard to achieve hindu-muslim unity. In doing so, to win over Muslim's hearts he criticized when Hindus attacked muslims but was completely silent when the opposite happened. Look at it from Gandhi's perspective. Gandhi must have thought that by condemning muslim people, he would surely crete more enmity among muslims. He already had support from hindus, so he can use that. Ofcourse Gandhi was making a mistake. But the blunder was that he kept on repeating the same mistake over and over again. Plus since he was at the top position, i think there was no one to correct him as well. Gandhi made a mistake a judgment but i guess the punishment of a mistake is magnified by its impact and Gandhi due to its god-like status made a huge impact.
Having said that, Gandhi's role for Indian independence can not be undermined. It is sad that he had to face such a death but on the other hand, Godse's question - How else to stop Gandhi?, there is no answer to this question.
Now coming to Hindutva, these religious fundamentalist are repeating the history again. Divisive politics are yet to reach new lows. The same question is still there - How to stop them? Is India looking for another Godse now?
On the discussion page, someone posted a link to Godse's court plea when he was put on trial on the charges of killing Gandhi. It can be downloaded from here : http://www.geocities.com/hindu-rastra/soh.html?menu.html&1
Congress banned Godse's plea as it was very accurate and showed the weaknesses of Congress. Godse was an intelligent man with a clear rationale on why he was killing Gandhi and he justified it very well. Even the judge who presided over the hearing was impressed. The article in the link above was written by a fellow who was also set on trial but got life transportation instead of death. It is to be noted that Godse never denied that he had killed Gandhi. However he denied all the other charges put forth against him. He faught his own defense and won it.
Many historians claim that Godse by killing Gandhi has immortalized him. Godse's defense contains some good analysis of where Gandhi went wrong. But again he is also biased when it comes to it. I would like to look at Gandhi from sociological perspective. Gandhi tried very hard to achieve hindu-muslim unity. In doing so, to win over Muslim's hearts he criticized when Hindus attacked muslims but was completely silent when the opposite happened. Look at it from Gandhi's perspective. Gandhi must have thought that by condemning muslim people, he would surely crete more enmity among muslims. He already had support from hindus, so he can use that. Ofcourse Gandhi was making a mistake. But the blunder was that he kept on repeating the same mistake over and over again. Plus since he was at the top position, i think there was no one to correct him as well. Gandhi made a mistake a judgment but i guess the punishment of a mistake is magnified by its impact and Gandhi due to its god-like status made a huge impact.
Having said that, Gandhi's role for Indian independence can not be undermined. It is sad that he had to face such a death but on the other hand, Godse's question - How else to stop Gandhi?, there is no answer to this question.
Now coming to Hindutva, these religious fundamentalist are repeating the history again. Divisive politics are yet to reach new lows. The same question is still there - How to stop them? Is India looking for another Godse now?
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Pro-choice vs pro-life
Something i had been meaning to blog since quite a time now. This is regarding the pro-choice and pro-life issues in US. US people are divided on the issue of abortion. Pro-life people say that abortion should be illegal and life should be respected while pro-choice group advocates the freedom to choose to have a baby or not. Now consider these two questions:
1. How can you be pro-life and still eat non-veg and support hunting?
2.(the dual part) How can you be pro-choice but still hate killing of animals?
I believe in pro-choice and am a vegetarian (hate killing of animals) and thus need to answer question 2.
Although in my frame of mind, i find the question 2 to be baseless as i have clear rationality regarding abortion and killing of animals. Animals are just another species like us and we should not have any say on their life unless self-defense is required. But abortion is life coming from us and we should be accountable for that life. If we can not support it or can not take responsibility for it, i think its best to abort. Thus i support the freedom to choose. Scientific facts say that the fetus when aborted after some specified time has grown to a state that it is equivalent to killing a baby. I am no expert but my point is that not taking care of a child is equivalent to killing him. We, those who are responsible for birth, should have the freedom to choose and take adequate measures.
However, even though i belong to class 2 of people, i still can not understand any arguments by people who fall in class 1. To someone, both these questions may seem two sides of a coin but i think class 1 is totally unjustified. How can you kill innocent animals just for fun (hunting) or as part of daily diet. And so much so that your entire diet is based on eating animals and nothing else. If you respect life then what authority do you have on saying that our life is superior than others.
I finally concede that my views are still not properly developed on this and my answer to question 2 is still unsatisfactory. I seek comments/points to further explore different viewpoints.
1. How can you be pro-life and still eat non-veg and support hunting?
2.(the dual part) How can you be pro-choice but still hate killing of animals?
I believe in pro-choice and am a vegetarian (hate killing of animals) and thus need to answer question 2.
Although in my frame of mind, i find the question 2 to be baseless as i have clear rationality regarding abortion and killing of animals. Animals are just another species like us and we should not have any say on their life unless self-defense is required. But abortion is life coming from us and we should be accountable for that life. If we can not support it or can not take responsibility for it, i think its best to abort. Thus i support the freedom to choose. Scientific facts say that the fetus when aborted after some specified time has grown to a state that it is equivalent to killing a baby. I am no expert but my point is that not taking care of a child is equivalent to killing him. We, those who are responsible for birth, should have the freedom to choose and take adequate measures.
However, even though i belong to class 2 of people, i still can not understand any arguments by people who fall in class 1. To someone, both these questions may seem two sides of a coin but i think class 1 is totally unjustified. How can you kill innocent animals just for fun (hunting) or as part of daily diet. And so much so that your entire diet is based on eating animals and nothing else. If you respect life then what authority do you have on saying that our life is superior than others.
I finally concede that my views are still not properly developed on this and my answer to question 2 is still unsatisfactory. I seek comments/points to further explore different viewpoints.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)