pic with rajpal yadav and javed akhtar

rang de basanti

Right now i am writing the post afetr watching rang de basanti. The movie was really movieng, but as sick as i am, i couldn't help but analyze it in my own crazy cynical way. But even then the movie has touched me, and to say otherwise wouldn't be completely honest. But then again, such kind of a movie always touches me, a movie where people die for their beliefs. where people act silly and go against any possible logic and reason and give up their lives in hope, where billions continue to live through a meaningless existence. Living just to live, not to contribute to the world but jst to live off others. people who hate their lives but still hate to give it away.

ziist sey tang ho daagh to jeetey kyun ho
jaan pyaari bhi nahi, jaan sey jaatey bhi nahi
(it you hate life so much then why do you live? neither do you love this life and neither do you leave it)

Any one who loved this movie should definitely read Faiz's 'nisaar main teri galiiyon pey ae watan'. You will definitely love it. If you cant find it then its there is one of my previous posts.

Coming back to what i was saying. I couldn't help but see how the POP culture had been shown in the movie. Then who were the target audience? what do the target audience do? which is the single largest category of movie goers in our country. Who was the POP culture in the movie emulating. Well all the answers to all of them are "The Urban Youth". It was as if  the movie was subconciously saying, "I will recognize your culture, and will show you as heroes, and i promise it that you will love it. So just watch."
"Having a problem making your parents understand you? Just bring them to the movie"
"wanna do what you do and still feel good about it? come to the screening"
"Are you looking for an identity? we have it made here. After this no one will question why you do what you do. they will accept you"
"Self Image for Sale. just buy the ticket watch the movie and emulate"

Yeah, it may sound crazy, but what's new in that. All i am saying are the things that do happen. I am not saying anything about the overtly said things. But when a person is watching the movie, even in a theatre, he is actually alone. The movie is selling something and in place called your hearts of the hearts its like a vendor is standing and asking you to buy. Now this buying process won't be covered in any management book. this is something that is so damned internal that it cannot be told. This is the place where people get sold on the idea that "killing some one is okay", "Rape is fun" or "i have to be great" or "i have to be rich and famous". This is the place where we buy in to our thought structure and the core of our operating system files are hidden. Its only tha some times some screwed up perspective comes along and infects it with a virus kind of perspective. So then starts the series of irrationsl activites, crimes, insane behaviour. Which i am sure is sane for the person who is doing it.
And this movie hits you right there, in the operating system files. Like ususally viruses attack through a system vulnurability, the human thought system also has a big big vulnerability. Its called emotion. So when you are emotional, the antivirus system in your brain is down, and you are done for.

So actually kudos for the film makers, to have studied the culture so well and then studied their TA(target audience) so well. then you throw in the national feelings and some people outside your TA have to see the movie. Throw in a controvercy(like the pilots mother, and the horse used in the movie) and ride on the free publicity. The punjabi touch in the tongue and delhi shown ......so total punjab has to see it. Demographics done. Once you have captured half the India, the other half has to see it. No one wants to be left out of anything in this country. Done . Movie Hit and Sucess. Social Message? Drink beer, roam out, but still be loved by your mother and parents, then go off and shoot the defense minister(why not the prime minister I don't understand) , get killed and get equated to bhagat singh.who cares..we got the money and made a profit and you suckers watched it and loved it.

You will have to love it. Because as every one loves chocolate(not the movie), there are a few emotions that every one responds to. One of them is sacrifice which is so ingrained in our culture that we cannot do anything about it.

If you think tht what i say is not true and you are not being used to make a fool of, then go on and read "One night at a call centre" by Chetan Bhagat and you will understand. The same story. Six friends working in a call centre, then some gyaan about how our country is lagging behind the rest of the world and then soem heroic stuff AND the POP culture blast in the extremes with all the dating, clubbing, ight out, daaru and stuff like that.

All i say is that day by day the authors and the movie people are getting smarter and smarter. The theme of the story almost seems to be researched, everything doen to the charachters seems to be so well researched that when i am reading or watching such a movie/novel i can't focus on the story but see how perfect marketing tactics they employ. They have become smart. Now they are no more telling what they wanted to say, but they are telling what people want to hear. And to tell you, its really bad. Because people doesn't mean all the people. Because then it would have been democracy. They are telling what a certain section of people who buy from them want to hear.

But even then somehow i donot worry too much about this country. this is a country where even after 50 years of independence, some one can live all his life abroad, then come back when his mother dies, be made a Prime Minister on the spot because his party has won due to a sympathy vote as his mother had died. Then he can work as a PM for 5 years and then be assasinated during an election campaign, and so be awarded bharat ratna, India's highest civilian decoration.and that also just after his death without any delay, while the genuine candidates who have slogged their whole life for this nation donot say a thing, as they never did what they did for any awards....and hence are losers...but a chap who has right surname, and a PM mother can get it in no time. So mr PM if you want a bharat ratna, just get assasinated after you lose your next election and get a bharat ratna..but first tell me, do you have the right surname? and was your mother the PM??? what??? NO??...ooooooops then sorry.........Do you know what's the difference between the death of Gandhi and that of Bhagat Sing? With Bhagat Singh there were other options other than dying. But Bhagat Sing GAVE UP his life, and Gandhi's life was TAKEN AWAY from him. He he he...how many of you honestly think that gandhi wanted to die for the country? But you can always say that his aim was getting freedom for this country and not giving up his life. Smart EH?

looks so Dark. Isn't it? but i used to think like that. The current reality is. In 1984 sikh's are killed in masses because a sikh kills the PM.Twenty years later the same party makes a sikh the PM. India is world's largest democracy. But people here are so dumb that the PM won't be chosen by the masses in a lok sabha election and therefore has to come through rajya sabha election(which is pretty much fixed..as in match fixing).
So our cuntry is different because here some how two negatives make a positive.A person as qualified as Dr. Manmohan Singh will lose an election here for a lok sabha seat, but can still be made the PM. Which i must say must be the world's most qualified PM. And for that matter if some one adds up the educational qualifications of india's previous PM's i am sure that it will be impressive. i think more than half of them have been educated abroad, starting right from nehru to gandhi and so on.....
And as far as stupidity is concerned, i think that will happen just on the lower levels of Indian Politics. The quality of people on the higher levels is pretty good or at least evenly matched, me thinks.I mean the indian PM will never be Dumber than the conteporary American President and that is good enough for me.

GodSpeed

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/252 - Release Date: 2/6/2006

First off-line Post

right now i am sitting in the confines of my home. I have quit MICA
and thus the phenomenal Internet speed that made downloads of 1 mb in
2 seconds to 3 seconds. I am going to miss that. With home there is
lot of love and carelessness which i can afford and along with that
comes a modem and dial up connection. Makes me feel like i have
travelled back in time to the days when Internet was still a big
thing even in a big city and when i used to live with my parents and
went to school.

So I am experimenting on this email program and blogspot's claims
that i can publish through an email. Lets see how far is it true?

right now i am content and not at all pissed off or anything. home
does that to me. whenever i am in the big bad world i am really
pissed off over one thing or another. Here i just donot care. i have
been waiting for the offer letter from crosswords which should arrive
anytime now and then i will be employed. something tells me that i
will be employed better than i would have been had i completed the course.

home gives me time to read and not think at all. Yesterday night i
spent my time with an old forgotten friend called Sherlock Holmes and
was watching him as he solved the study in the scarlet.

ha ha ha...no great thoughts for today...not even crappy ones.....i
love it.......... my post off you go

bbye

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/2006

few links

Few documents and their links

Internship Offer letter From SYNAPSE(click here for company details)

My Resume

Withdrawl letter from MICA

CAT 2004 Score Card

on these pages... money is

On these pages.......

money is paper with some dead man's image on it that is a tangible representation of my hardwork or my skill at something. Baiscally those pieces of paer decide if i can live or survive or not. Because if someone doesn't have those particular pieces of paper then he cannot buy anything.......now don't tell me that he can eat out of the trees and farms....

people's criteria to evaluate me may contain points for the amount of paper i have.

Day by day these paper bits are changing in to orientation of magnetic particles on a surface. Nowdays most of my money is in the form of a few magnetic particles on the surface of hard disk on some bank. the money can be used by me only if i have another small plastic cards with the desired orientation of particles on the magnetic strips.

A day will soon come when i will forget what paper money looks like. I will work my ass off, and my money will be deposited in bank by an email to the bank. Then wherever i need money i will just swipe cards. So eventually it is right that the world is turning into paperless money world.

In future Money will just remain a concept and will cease to exist in form. After 500 years, it will be hard to explain it to children that what money stands for. Those days will be long gone when you could just hand them a pience of paper and say that this is called money.

Not too distant in te future, we won't even need plastic cards with desirable orientations, but just a thumbprint will do. So end to all the hoarding and looting. The thumb and the retina will take care of all the monetary situatuin and wallet will disappear. Why would you need that anyways? when all of ur documents can be seen online by concerned people just by the scan of ur thumb.

Hard to Imagine..........................But yet very interesting..............

Godspeed

Entertaining Emotions

Right now i am on a friends watching marathon, and am currently on season 6. And as i paused the series to go and grab a bite, as usual I went on the socrates dialectics and realized something. The process went as...

Q: why do i watch Friends?
A:because its entertaining

Q:Why is it entertaining?
A: Because it is fun and humor.

Q:So is fun and humor entertainment?
A: Yes.

Q: But what do fun and humor produce as end result?
A: Emotions. namely happiness

Q:Is the series real?
A: No. Its fiction.

Q: Is the reason for the smiles and happy feeling real?
A: No. Fiction is not all reality

Q: Is the happiness real?
A: yes

Q: So actually am I watching the series for an emotional gain?
A: Yes

Q: So are all the people who watch the series do that for the same gain?
A: Maybe

Q: Why may be?
A: they might also be watching in to learn pop culture and to learn things as well as entertainment.

Q: So do people watch series like "kyunki saas bhi kabhi bahu thi" for the same reason..?
A: Yes, namely emotion and to learn pop culture/fashion etc.

Q: How do you say pop culture?
A: Because i have seen people selling clothes and asking for clothes and accesories based on the series. I have seen parents looking fo a role model child, and children looking for answers for lifes question.

Q: but the saas bahu series is tragic at times isn't it?
A: yes

Q: But people still love it isn't it?
A: yes they do.

Q: so do people want to be sad?
A: Must be, but the series is not sad all the times.

Q: Do people find being sad as entertainment?
A: must be.

Q: Do people find emotions entertaining?
A: Certainly.

Q: But being sad isn't healthy is it?
A: I guess not, because science says that laugh reduces BP and sadness increases BP. Emotions manifest themselves as physical changes in Blood and heart and psychological changes.

Q: What about the theory that people work to find happiness?
A: I donot know........Must be wrong.....People must be as interested in sadness then isn't it?

Roark: The Fountainhead

This is from the courtroom scene in the book "The fountainhead" by Ayn Rand. But here actually is the philosophy of Ayn Rand clearly defined.
-----

It was only a moment; the moment of silence when Roark was about to speak.

"Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded. But thereafter men had fire to keep them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had lifted darkness off the earth. Centuries later, the first man invented the wheel. He was probably torn on the rack he had taught his brothers to build. He was considered a transgressor who ventured into forbidden territory. But thereafter, men could travel past any horizon. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had opened the roads of the world.

"That man, the unsubmissive and first, stands in the opening chapter of every legend mankind has recorded about its beginning. Prometheus was chained to a rock and torn by vultures--because he had stolen the fire of the gods. Adam was condemned to suffer--because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Whatever the legend, somewhere in the shadows of its memory mankind knew that its glory began with one and that that one paid for his courage.

"Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received--hatred. The great creators--the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors--stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The first airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.

"No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives. His truth was his only motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own way. A symphony, a book, an engine, a philosophy, an airplane, or a building--that was his goal and his life. Not those who heard, read, operated, believed, flew or inhabited the thing he had created. The creation, not its users. The creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things and against all men.

"His vision, his strength, his courage cam from his own spirit. A man's spirit, however, is his self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego.

"The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power-- that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He had lived for himself.

"And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement.

"Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. Animals obtain food by force. Man has no claws, no fangs, no horns, no great strength of muscle. He must plant his food or hunt it. To plant, he needs a process of thought. To hunt, he needs weapons, and to make weapons--a process of thought. From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man--the function of his reasoning mind.

"But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. it is a secondary consequence. The primary act--the process of reason--must be performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man con use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred.

"We inherit the products of the thought of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make a cart. The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane. But all through the process what we receive from others is only the end product of their thinking. The moving force is the creative faculty which takes this product as material, uses it and originates the nest step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single individual men. That which it creates is the property of the creator. Men learn from one another. But all learning is only the exchange of material. No man can give another the capacity to think. Yet that capacity is our only means of survival.

"Nothing is given to man on earth . Everything he needs has to be produced. And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways-- by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows. The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary.

"The creator's concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite's concern is the conquest of men.

"The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself. The parasite lives second-hand. He needs others. Others become his prime motive.

"The basic need of the creator is independence. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be curbed, sacrificed or subordinated to any consideration whatsoever. It demands total independence in function and in motive. To a creator, all relations with men are secondary.

"The basic need of the second-hander is to secure his ties with men in order to be fed. He places relations first. He declares that man exists in order to serve others. He preaches altruism.

"Altruism is the doctrine which demands that man live for others and place others above self.

"No man can live for another. He cannot share his spirit just as he cannot share his body. But the second-hander has used altruism as a weapon of exploitation and reversed the base of mankind's moral principles. Men have been taught every precept that destroys the creator. Men have been taught dependence as a virtue.

"The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but mutual corruption. It is impossible in concept. The nearest approach to it in reality--the man who lives to serve others--is the slave. If physical slavery is repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit? The conquered slave has a vestige of honor. He has the merit of having resisted and of considering his condition evil. But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily in the name of love is the basest of creatures. He degrades the dignity of man and he degrades the conception of love. But this is the essence of altruism.

"Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution--or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement.

"Men have been taught that their first concern is to relieve the suffering of others. But suffering is a disease. Should one come upon it, one tries to give relief and assistance. To make that the highest test of virtue is to make suffering the most important part of life. Then man must wish to see others suffer--in order that he may be virtuous. Such is the nature of altruism. The creator is not concerned with disease, but with life. Yet the work of the creators has eliminated one form of disease after another, in man's body and spirit, and brought more relief from suffering than any altruist could ever conceive.

"Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone.

"Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egotist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge, or act. These are functions of the self.

"Here the basic reversal is most deadly. The issue has been perverted and man has been left no alternative-and no freedom. As poles of good and evil, he was offered two conceptions: egotism and altruism. Egotism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism--the sacrifice of self to others. This tied man irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self. When it was added that man must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal--under the threat that sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind.

"This was the device by which dependence and suffering were perpetuated as fundamentals of life.

"The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence. The code of the creator or the code of the second-hander. This is the basic issue. It rest upon the alternative of life or death. The code of the creator is built on the needs of the reasoning mind which allows man to survive. The code of the second-hander is built on the needs of a mind incapable of survival. All that which proceeds from man's dependence upon men is evil.

"The egoist in the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man--and he asks no man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.

"Degrees of ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man's independence, initiative and personal love for his work determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man. Independence is the only gauge of human virtue and value. What a man is and makes of himself; not what he has or hasn't done for others. There is no substitute for personal dignity. There is no standard of personal dignity except independence.

"In all proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone. An architect needs clients, but he does not subordinate his work to their wishes. They need him, but they do not order a house just to give him a commission. Men exchange their work by free, mutual consent to mutual advantage when their personal interests agree and they both desire the exchange. If they do not desire it, they are not forced to deal with each other. They seek further. Anything else is a relation of slave to master, or victim to executioner.

"No work is ever done collectively, by a majority decision. Every creative job is achieved under the guidance of a single individual thought. An architect requires a great many men to erect his building. But he does not ask them to vote on his design. They work together by free agreement and each is free in his proper function. An architect uses steel, glass, concrete, produced by others. But the materials remain just so much steel, glass and concrete until he touches them. What he does with them is his individual product and his individual property. This is the only pattern for proper co-operation among men.

"The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man's first duty is to himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men. This includes the whole sphere of his creative faculty, his thinking, his work. But it does not include the sphere of the gangster, the altruist and the dictator.

"A man thinks and works alone. A man cannot rob, exploit or rule--alone. Robbery, exploitation and ruling presuppose victims. They imply dependence. They are the province of the second-hander.

"Rulers of men are not egoists. They create nothing. The exist entirely through the persons of others. Their goal is in their subjects, in the activity of enslaving. They are as dependent as the beggar, the social worker and the bandit. The form of dependence does not matter.

"But men were taught to regard second-handers--tyrants, emperors, dictators--as exponents of egotism. By this fraud they were made to destroy the ego, themselves and others. The purpose of the fraud was to destroy the creators. Or to harness them. Which is a synonym.

"From the beginning of history, the two antagonists have stood face to face: the creator and the second-hander. When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander responded. He invented altruism.

""The creator--denied, opposed, persecuted, exploited--went on, moved forward and carried all humanity along on his energy. The second-hander contributed nothing to the process except the impediments. The contest has another name: the individual against the collective.

"The 'common good' of a collective--a race, a class, a state-- was the claim and justification of every tyranny ever established over men. Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive. Has any act of selfishness ever equaled the carnage perpetrated by disciples of altruism? Does the fault lie in men's hypocrisy or in the nature of the principle? The most dreadful butchers were the most sincere. They believed in the perfect society reached through the guillotine and the firing squad. Nobody questioned their right to murder since they were murdering for an altruistic purpose. It was accepted that man must be sacrificed for other men. Actors change, but the course of the tragedy remains the same. A humanitarian who starts with declarations of love for mankind and ends with a sea of blood. It goes on and will go on so long as men believe that an action is good if it unselfish. That permits the altruist to act and forces his victims to bear it. The leaders of collectivist movements ask nothing for themselves. But observe the results.

"The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is--Hands off!

"Now observe the results of a society built on the principle of individualism. This, our country. The noblest country in the history of men. The country of greatest achievement, greatest prosperity, greatest freedom. This country was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism. It was based on a man's right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else's. A private, personal, selfish motive. Look at the results. Look into your own conscience.

"It is an ancient conflict. Men have come close to the truth, but it was destroyed each time and one civilization fell after another. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

"Now, in our age, collectivism, the rule of the second-hander and second-rater, the ancient monster, has broken loose and is running amuck. It has brought men to a level of intellectual indecency never equaled on earth. It has reached a scale of horror without precedent. It has poisoned every mind. It has swallowed most of Europe. It is engulfing our country.

"I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live.

"Now you know why I dynamited Cortlandt.

"I designed Cortlandt. I gave it to you. I destroyed it.

"I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist. It was a double monster. In form and in implication. I had to blast both. The form was mutilated by two second-handers who assumed the right to improve upon that which they had not made and could not equal. They were permitted to do it by the general implication that the altruistic purpose of the building supersede all rights and that I had no claim to stand against it.

"I agreed to design Cortlandt for the purpose of seeing it erected as I designed it and for no other reason. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid.

"I do not blame Peter Keating. He was helpless. He had a contract with his employers. It was ignored. He had a promise that the structure he offered would be built as designed. The promise was broken. The love of a man for the integrity of his work and his right to preserve it are now considered a vague intangible and an unessential. You have heard the prosecutor say that. Why was the building disfigured? For no reason. Such acts never have any reason, unless it's the vanity of some second-handers who feel they have a right to anyone's property, spiritual or material. Who permitted them to do it? No particular man among the dozens in authority. No one cared to permit it or to stop it. No one was responsible. NO one can be held to account. Such is the nature of all collective action.

"I did not receive the payment I asked. But the owners of Cortlandt got what they need from me. they wanted a scheme devised to build a structure as cheaply as possible. They found no one else who could do it to their satisfaction. I could and did. they took the benefit of my work and made me contribute it as a gift. But I am not an altruist. i do not contribute gifts of this nature.

"It is said that I have destroyed the home of the destitute. It is forgotten that but for me the destitute could not have had this particular home. Those who were concerned with the poor had to come to me, who have never been concerned, in order to help the poor. It is believed that the poverty of the future tenants gave them a right to my work. that their need constituted a claim on my life. That it was my duty to contribute anything demanded of me. This is the second-hander's credo now swallowing the world.

"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need.

"I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others.

"It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.

"I wished to come here and say that the integrity of a man's creative work is of greater importance than any charitable endeavor. Those of you who do not understand this are the men who're destroying the world.

"I wished to come here and state my terms. I do not care to exist on any others.

"I recognize no obligations toward men except one: to respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society. To my country, i wish to give the ten years which I will spend in jail if my country exists no longer. I will spend them in memory and in gratitude for what my country has been. It will be my act of loyalty, my refusal to live or work in what has taken its place.

Withdrawing my Admission from MICA

I am withdrawing my admission from MICA. I have been here long enough, and now I must get down working. Enough of running away from the job. Guess it hasn't been that good a place as I wished it to be. I have been told that I can apply for the Teaching Associate or Research Associate at the place where i will be paid, as well as allowed to atten classes. But I think i should go back to the Industry and get some Work-ex.

Godspeed

Feminism...thank you melly...

I wanted to write some thing very close to what you have written. But now after reading your post, if i go back to write the same stuff, it will look like foolish, and inspired. So i am just acting lazy and posting the link to the blog here

Godspeed

The falure of feminism

I came Across this article and i had to post it. Its pretty long, but worth a read. And its written by a woman and not a man . Happy reading, and if you are a feminist, happy fuming and thinking.

I would be posting another article shortly. Its by Nicholas Davidson.
Godspeed

"The Failure of Feminism" by Kay Ebeling

The other day I had the world's fastest blind date. A Yuppie from Eureka penciled me in for 50 minutes on a Friday and met me at a watering hole in the rural northern California town of Arcata. He breezed in, threw his jammed daily planner on the table and shot questions at me, watching my reactions as if it were a job interview. He eyed how much I drank. Then
he breezed out to his next appointment. He had given us 50 minutes to size each other up and see if there was any chance for romance. His exit was so fast that as we left he let the door slam back in my face. It was an interesting slam.

Most of our 50-minute conversation had covered the changing state of male-female relationships. My blind date was 40 years old, from the Experimental Generation. He is "actively pursuing new ways for men and women to interact now that old traditions no longer exist." That's a real quote. He really did say that, when I asked him what he liked to do. This was a man who'd read Ms. Magazine and believed every word of it. He'd been single for 16 years but had lived with a few women during that time. He was off that evening for a ski weekend, meeting someone who was paying her own way for the trip.

I too am from the Experimental Generation, but I couldn't even pay for my own drink. To me, feminism has backfired against women. In 1973 I left what could have been a perfectly good marriage, taking with me a child in diapers, a 10-year-old Plymouth and Volume 1, Number One of Ms. Magazine. I was convinced I could make it on my own. In the last 15 years my ex has
married or lived with a succession of women. As he gets older, his women stay in their 20s. Meanwhile, I've stayed unattached. He drives a BMW. I ride buses.

Today I see feminism as the Great Experiment That Failed, and women in my generation, its perpetrators, are the casualties. Many of us, myself included, are saddled with raising children alone. The resulting poverty makes us experts at cornmeal recipes and ways to find free recreation on weekends. At the same time, single men from our generation amass fortunes
in CDs and real-estate ventures so they can breeze off on ski weekends. Feminism freed men, not women. Now men are spared the nuisance of a wife and family to support. After childbirth, if his wife's waist doesn't return to 20 inches, the husband can go out and get a more petite woman.
It's far more difficult for the wife, now tied down with a baby, to find a new man. My blind date that Friday waved goodbye as he drove off in his RV. I walked home and paid the sitter with laundry quarters.

The main message of feminism was: woman, you don't need a man; remember, those of you around 40, the phrase: "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle"? That joke circulated through "consciousness raising" groups across the country in the '70s. It was a philsophy that made divorce and cohabitation casual and routine. Feminism made women
disposable. So today a lot of females are around 40 and single with a couple of kids to raise on their own. Child-support payments might pay for a few pairs of shoes, but in general, feminism gave men all the financial and personal advantages over women.

What's worse, we asked for it. Many women decided: you don't need a family structure to raise your children. We packed them off to day-care centers where they could get their nurturing from professionals. Then we put on our suits and ties, packed our briefcases and took off on this
Great Experiment, convinced that there was no difference between ourselves and the guys in the other offices.

How wrong we were. Because, like it or not, women have babies. It's this biological thing that's just there, these organs we're born with. The truth is, a woman can't live the true feminist life unless she denies her child-bearing biology. She has to live on the pill, or have her tubes
tied at an early age. Then she can keep up with the guys with an uninterrupted career and then, when she's 30, she'll be paying her own way on ski weekends too.

The reality of feminism is a lot of frenzied and overworked women dropping kids off at day-care centers. If the child is sick, they just send along some children's Tylenol and then rush off to underpaid jobs that they don't even like. Two of my working-mother friends told me they were
mopping floors and folding laundry after midnight last week. They live on five hours of sleep, and it shows in their faces. And they've got husbands! I'm not advocating that women retrogress to the brainless housewives of the '50s who spent afternoons baking macaroni sculptures and
keeping Betty Crocker files. Post-World War II women were the first to be left with a lot of free time, and they weren't too creative in filling it.
Perhaps feminism was a reaction to that Brainless Betty, and in that respect, feminism has served a purpose.
Women should get their educations so they can be brainy in the way they raise their children. Women can start small businesses, do consulting, write freelance out of the home. But women don't belong in 12-hour-a-day executive office positions, and I can't figure out today what ever made us think we would want to be there in the first place. As long as that biology is there, women can't compete equally with men. A ratio cannot be made using disproportionate parts. Women and men are not equal, we're different. The economy might even improve if women came home, opening up jobs for unemployed men, who could then support a wife a children, the wayit was, pre-feminism.

Sometimes on Saturday nights I'll get dressed up and go out club-hopping or to the theater, but the sight of all those other women my age, dressed a little too young, made up to hide encroaching wrinkles, looking hopefully into the drowds, usually depresses me. I end up coming home, to spend my Saturday night with my daughter asleep in her room nearby. At least the
NBC Saturday-night lineup is geared demographically to women at home alone.

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

An Egoist Male Chauvinist's solemn Oath

I here by agree to give an individual woman a singular status not on the basis of what she desires or expects but on the basis of what she works towards through her speech, belief, action and behaviour, at all times. The judgment will be my own based on my personal experience, knowledge and understanding of the social norms and will be comprehensive and static as the same is forwarded towards me at all times by individuals concerned. The judgment so derived will be my private property, without any rights to change it extended to any individual, and it shall be understood that any such judgment having been derived is to aid me in my understanding of the workings of this world as well as help me in my decision making.

For the layman: if you want me to think of you as something you want, then action speak louder than words, so work towards it on all times. Because I don't have time to spend on you to try to understand you and believe in how good a person you are. Every one thinks he is a good person. And we all know that world has a lot of bad people. So something must be wrong some where. Plus always take the fact in to consideration that I haven't been awarded the luxury. People form opinions about me on what they hear, so I can also form an opinion about you on what I hear, and its perfectly fair. If you act and dress and walk like a whore, I will definitely think of you as a whore, even if you are a "beautiful person on the inside" or even if you are a "very good human being" whatever they are and wherever they exist.


If thou dress to be desired, thou shalt be desired,
If thou dress to be loved, thou shalt be loved,
If thou dress to be respected, thou shalt be respected
If you show, I will watch.

And I know that this will hold good, because I do not think of Madonna the way I think of Mother Teresa. So if you want the respect that Mother Teresa enjoys, then you will have to work equally hard. You can't have it all. You have to lose something to gain something. So its you who has to decide what's more important, you freedom to act and dress as you want, or that respect that society will give you. Because I would also like to be respected like Gandhi, but if I keep on behaving like a Casanova then that can't happen can it??

I am just wasting space here. Because I know that every girl knows this. How many girls go in to temple with low waist jeans and short skimpy tops??...Few... How many girls go to a college with the same dress??...Many.... So its pretty obvious...Isn't it?

So if you are labeled by people as "easy to bag", even when you are not(or you think you are not), then there must be some thing there..Isn't it....Well there is something called the wisdom of the crowds. In the book James Suroweicki mentions that how in a village fair when people were asked to guess the approx weight of a cattle, the average guess was exact while the expert guesses were way off the mark. Now this is not to be confused with "mob mentality" in which the whole groups effort is equal to the best mans effort.

And then we have been told in Blink too, haven't we?? That in 15 seconds a class could tell that what a teacher is....Just 15 seconds.....

So the crux is that if people are thinking of you in an undesired manner, or if people are calling you something.....They have a huge probability of being right and so you need some introspection. That is if you care about what they think of you, and you want it to be equal to what you want them to think of you. Now I am afraid, that people are usually right when we are talking about something that is pretty common and basic and doesn't need expert knowledge to analyze, something like behavior.

Because people often do go wrong. They will call you names, but prefer it to be because of your work and not your character and personality.

Suppose M.F. Hussain had been making these kind of paintings from the time he was 24. What would his classmates say of him?? What would his teachers say of him??? And his parents??

Had he heard and listened to people, or his peers, his class mates then could he ever have made a painting worth 3 crores? Would these people have allowed him to walk the same path? Are they allowing him to go on his path even now?

I am in no way saying that he is great or I like him or anything, I am just here to prove a point. His paintings are considered weird by people. But he never cared and is rich. Similarly if today people call me names should I change my thinking? Definitely not. Because my thinking is so far off from other people's that as if "its crazy enough to be really good". Had it been a little off mark, I could have even tried and changed it, but because its so different, that may be I should keep it for the sake of diversity in the world. Because my kind of thinking is really " endangered Species". Mind you, I am not saying that my thinking is that of Newton or some one, but all I am saying is that its different. And I can even cite examples. Almost always, I am left in the crowd fighting a point of view which is supported by rest.

Yesterday me and Rahul started talking on whether pornography is good or bad, and all of a sudden I found myself trying to convince 4 people at the same time that how pornography is the advertisement and prostitution is the product. They wouldn't buy the argument. They held on to their thought that pornography and prostitution ought to be legalized in India. That concerns me. Because if all start thinking like that, then tomorrow it may become legal. And what concerns me is not just their view point on these, but many other things. Including views about "what is Indian Culture".

Their views were not so irrational, just under thought and under studied. What they have been so dearly holding on to are beliefs that come on the first step of the thinking ladder. A child can not have "consumerism" or "carcinogen" as his first word but will may be say "mom" or "dad" . Similarly what they are thinking is the "mum" and "dad" level, while they are thinking that they are at some other level.

I also was at that level some years ago and used to think as they do, but it takes thinking and reading to locate the flaw of the argument and then you reach at a different level. But they were laughing at me, without even knowing what was I talking about. The biggest problem was that I could perfectly understand why they were saying what ever they were saying, hell, I also used to think the same. But it was after reading and thinking, that I moved away. Because their argument was something that comes naturally. And obviouly they couldn't make sense out why was I saying what I was saying, because they need to work before they reach at this level of argument.

So that's al for now, I will come back later on to write more on feminism and chauvinism and where we are going wrong. The level will not be great, but I am still evolving

Godspeed

Where The Mind Is Without Fear

After a long time i was thinking about my school, and the first thing i remember is my favourate school prayer. I love the prayer, which is actually a poem, and know it by heart. Its from geetanjali by Rabindranath Tagore. The Man who not only wrote but also composed India's National Anthem as well as bangladesh's nathional anthem. Awarded the 1913 nobel prize in litreature and used the prize money to open shanti niketan.

The lines have always left me wondering an hopeful. Somewhere inside i believe in what they say.

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high
Where knowledge is free
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
By narrow domestic walls
Where words come out from the depth of truth
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit
Where the mind is led forward by thee
Into ever-widening thought and action
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake

Two Videos

Two videos to watch

Video one



Video two





Godspeed

Immortals

Have been reading some stuff on Saint Augustine. And all the things in the world are interrelated. A man who was around 1600 years ago, invented the concept of a "Just War" and gave a philosophy on ethics and the concept of the "Original sin" which still continues.

the war is now no more being fought with bows and arrows but computers and technology. Have we really progressed? schopenhaur and Nietzsche after 1400 years reworked on his concept and made it contemporary. WOW......i really admire such people.

Because i am sure neither the people who wage war or who practice these philosophies must know about the men who invented these things. its like using the law of gravity and forgetting all about newton. And why can't it happen in next 1600 years??

I mean the pace at which we are, children might be reading about gravity in prep and kindergarten, the same way they are reading about traffic lights right now. Isn't traffic light a recent invention? And by that time there would have been so many GODs that people would have forgottoen all about Einstine and Newton.

Some 2000 years ago, Aristotle must have been the Einstine or Gandhi of his age. Now we don't find him that appealing, because he is so distant in the past. His writings so out of time, and concepts answering to problems that were then contemporary. But these people have lived their lives for all these years. and they are still alive. Why do i say so??

How does it matter to me that Bill Gates, or Ambani is alive?? Did i notice any change in my life when Dhirubhai died? Did i notice any change when Drucker died? No. None At all. How did i know that these people were alive? Mostly by the "tense" that newspapers used when reffring to them. That has changed. Now no more of their news will be published. But these people have said and done enough, to be printed for the next 400 years.
They are still here amongst us. I still have to allocate the same amount of space in my mind for them, as i had when they were alive. people will still talk about them. The tense will change from present to past, but these people will continue to live on.

If you find it hard to imagine, just think as if they are alive, and in a Coma, under heavy security. Now what do you say? You cannot meet them. They won't talk. But they are alive, and being kept alive by the media.

And Aristotle, Plato and god knows how many are still alive. They are still walking the earth. Taking space in our minds. We just speak of them in past tense. Bill Gates to me is some body who i know through the print, and so is aristotle.

And what a pity, that Gates with all his money has contributed less to this world than a poor ex-communicated jew and a lens grinder from amsterdam called Spinoza. So is all that wealth worth it?

Few people know Spinoza and what he did, but one can never fathom the way in which he has changed the course of history, by changing the way one thinks.If you doubt what i say, then click here


So should I try to be Bill Gates or Spinoza? Should i think of enjoying now, or live ever after? because for both to happen, is a very hard unheard of task. may be only few people like einstine, edison and newton have been able to pull it off. Rest of the people spent all their lives in hardship tring to convince people about their ideas, and by the time people got convinced, these people had died. Some like Bruno and Galileo even suffered worse. Bruno was burnt on stakes. At the time church used to be the opressor, now its some one else....may be media? or the corporates?

I mean don't tell me that the power that church had over people's lives hasn't been passed on to some one. Don't tell me that now people don't get branded as heretics. They do.

In the time of the church and in medieval times, just imagine a man like Spinoza writing that there is no God. I am saying that please imagine a medieval city, with medieval clothes with candle lights and swords hanging from people's waist. With the education level and slavery still in vogue. Then Imagine the Church with red velvet and the Priest being the voice of God and the King being the God's incarnation. And then Imagine a man huddled on a wooden table in a wooden house overlooking a street, writing on a piece of paper with a quilt pen . There is an inkpot beside him. He dips the pen into the ink and writes on the blank parchament "There is No God".

What will be the people's reaction to that? Can you Imagine?

What can you say will be such a sentence in today's time? I can't Imagine that.

Now everthing that existed at that time, still exists. The form has changed. Swords have changed to guns, Education relatively I think has fallen. I mean what a man knows, compared to how much knowledge there is to know. I am not talking about literacy. May be a common man knows more today than the best Scientist at that age. But in relation to the best scientist in our age, he knows relatively less, me thinks.

Similarly paper has changed to scren, pen changed to key board in some places. But the function and the needs haven't.
Its just that man still kills and is still thirsty. Now power also has changed. Earlier we knew that church had that power. At one call of a priest, people will burn a man on stake. Now in present times, what is such a thing at whose one call people will burn me at a stake. Who has as much trust of the people as the priest had in earlier times. Whose word carries as much influence as the word of the priest? Who tells me what is sin and what is not........I hope you are getting there.

I think the answer is either media, or the television(which again is media).
So today i may not be called a heretic because i go against God. But what is it that will get me branded as a heretic by the media? I don't know...will have to think on it.

Thats all for now
i will be back later on

satyarth

Forgive me Father for I have sinned

Forgive me father, for I have sinned,
Find me guilty of the life i feel within.

For i have dared to take off the glasses of Faith, Hope and Love. And then I have dared to Gaze dark in to the abyss. And now the abyss is gazing dark in to me. I have tried to come out of the abyss, but it isn't helping. Because without my glasses, the world is a very sorry place. Right now, at this moment, i know why do we need God. And i see that why must Voltaire have said that we need to create one. Because man by its nature cannot live without hope. It cannot handle unpredictable end.

Thats why every movie is on the theme of good conquering the evil. Every story has to kill the villain in the end, or else no story can be written. Because stories are made by people who live to tell it. Stories are a way of telling what is desired by the society, of a man. Only those stories are chosen to tell which have hope. Which put people at ease. The stories that tell that everything is okay, or everything is going to be okay.

I have ventured too far on my quest. And now even when i want to believe that the world is full of good things for which a man should live for, i cannot believe it. Its like eating the blue pill in the matrix. I donot know if i will be the same again.

Right now, its 31st. tommorow it will be new year. But i donot feel the joy that millions of people feel around the world. Because i know that it will be another day, with the same sun and same moon. I still cannot figure out that why do people feel happy on their birthdays. Because i cannot feel that happiness. Because its again another day. Should i be happy that i lived to see it? That i could see so many suns rise and so many suns set.
And any one who doesn't think that way, i would just say, that you are lucky that you chose not to take off the glasses. And you chose hope. That only good things will happen. You chose to believe that people love you. You chose to believe in God. And you chose to lie to yourself, by not questioning your beliefs. Not any of them.

Because happiness is like myth. If you believe that there was Ram and sita. They were. No one can tell for sure, or else they wouldn't be called mythology, they will be called history. Similarly, if you think that you have happiness, you have it. No one can tell. But do you know how do we break a myth. We break a myth by questioning it. Myth breaks when Logic is applied to it.

So again i am off, and keep thinking. Below is the complete lyrics of the song "Thorn within" by Metallica.

Godspeed

Forgive me father
For I have sinned
Find me guilty of the life I feel within

When I'm branded
This mark of shame
Should I look down disgraced
Or straight ahead
And know that you must blame

I am, I am the secret
I am, I am the sin
I am, I am the guilty
And I, I am the thorn within

Forgive me father
For I have sinned
Find me guilty when true guilt is from within

So point your fingers
Point right at me
For I am shadows and will follow you
One and the same are we

I am, I am the secret
I am, I am the sin
I am, I am the guilty
And I, I am the thorn within

I do your time
I take your fall
I'm branded guilty
For us all

So point your fingers
Point right at me
For I am shadows and will follow you
One and the same are we

I am, I am your secrets
I am, I am your sin
I am, I am your guilty
And I, I am the thorn within
I am the thorn within

Fear led consumption

Well right now I am watching "bowling for columbine" on the Columbine High School Killings and have paused the movie because I have to write this down

Yesterday I was actually watching 'friends' before that, and in there Phoebe says that Monica is "High maintaining". Now I didn't actually get the way it meant. I had a fair idea, but wanted to be sure. So as I always do, I paused the series and hit the web. .

As I was surfing and looking for an explanation I came across a site askmen.com.Well it was a lot of stuff about various things, about how to dress and carry oneself and talk to girls, and an article on what high maintaining girl friends actually are.

As I drifted to another article called Men's Body Image: The Brad Pitt Syndrome. The Article discussed on how Men today are under pressure, Indirectly to go in for a Greek god like body.Since it had the actual words like theory and syndrome in the heading, I had to read it. And believe me it was awesome. I am pasting a paragraph here.
"One place to see this difference between men and women is in advertising -- not in the pictures, but the text. In publicity directed towards women, advertisers coo and cajole, urging them to a thousand different tasks: Redefine Your Profile, Use Your Heart, Free Your Mind. They're talking to the women's souls, while the product they're selling is for the body. Advertising for men's fashion and body care tends to be strong and silent, as if we're still a little embarrassed to spend time on such superfluous frills."

Coming back to the movie, here the high school kids have killed fellow students and now every one is coming out with their own theory about who might have influenced them. Since everything the kids did was under the microscope people knew that they used to listen to Marilyn Manson. The strongest contender turns out to be some rock artist called Marilyn Manson.

I am going to go back at the movie and quote him verbatim here

"When I was a kid growing up music was the escape, that was the thing that had no judgment. You can put on a record and that's not going to yell at you for the way u are dressed but is actually going to make you feel good about it.
The two by products of the whole tragedy were "violence in entertainment" and "gun control". And how perfect as those were the two things that we were going to talk about in the up coming elections. And also then we forgot about the Monica Lewinsky and we forgot that the president was shooting bombs overseas. Yet I am a bad guy, because I sing some rock and roll songs.Who is a bigger influence, the president or Marilyn Manson? I would like to think me, but I am gonna go with the president. Interviewer: Do you know that was the day when columbine happened united states dropped more bombs on kosovo than any other time during the war? Marilyn Manson: Yeah I do know that, and I think that is really ironic you know that nobody said that wow, maybe the president had an influence on this violent behavior. Because that's the way media wants to take it and spin and turn it into fear, Because then you are watching the television, you are watching the news, you are being pumped full of fear. There's floods, there's aids, there's murder, cut to commercial, buy the Acura buy the Colgate, if you have bad breath they are not going to talk to you, if you have got pimples the girl is not going to fcuk you, and its just a campaign of fear and consumption and that is all that it is based on.That is the whole idea, that keep everyone afraid and they will consume. That's as simple as it can be boiled down to."

Why am I quoting this thing here?? Because I believe that what he said was very true, and I had reached the same realization after reading the novel by Michael Crichton, which was called "State of Fear"
In the novel, the idea was that we are not moving towards any global warming, but actually towards the next Ice Age. But after the cold war is over, government needs a new kind of fear to control people. To make them think in something. So now there is Aids, and Global Warming and what not, just to fill up up the empty space left after the fear of war with soviet union.
But since I am a marketing chap, I had also thought that this is what advertisements do all the time. And in the "Great Indian Laughter Challenge", some participant had very humorously said, that " I donot watch T.V. Because after watching TV for 6 hours when I get up, I start feeling that I have dandruff in the hair, my teeth are yellow, my skin is cracked and I am no good in any way".
Isn't that what all the advertisements talk about??? About helping out people to be more acceptable? But who is making the standards that what is acceptable and what is not.
If pot bellies were ok, then who would go to the gymnasium?

Romans used to feed themselves, and then vomit the food, and then eat again because they loved eating. But here in this world what are we doing. We get a job, we ride a car.We make escalators, so that we are not tired when we climb the stairs to our office, then we make more similar technology that reduces work, then we eat as if we worked so hard(physically), and since that is prone to give you a bulging belly, we invent more machines on which you are supposed to work out on to burn calories.
Who gets a job? The scientist who invents escalators, the company that makes them, the advertiser who sells them, and the company who make those calorie burning machines, and the gym guy where you go.
Wouldn't have been easier, that you had walked to work and climbed the stairs??? Well I know it sounds a little theoretical and its not that simple. But I hope it illustrates the point.

One of MICA Lecture Series had a lecturer called Mr. Picard from Sweden who specializes in media. He also had made an important point. That at any given time, technology always addresses the most crucial problem being faced by a society. Most of the technology that we have was invented in the west. Most of the technologies that we have were made by a society who had vast amount of land, and little population. And that led to industries and machines. They were supposed to fulfill the shortage of labor. But what are the today's technology about?? Well the answer my friend is TIME. And he has said a very apt thing.

Because as you see, the advent of computer was initially to aid people as machines. But gradually they became time saving things. Google is getting popular not because it feeds our "quest for knowledge". Because it saves time by being more accurate. Because before google, yahoo and MSN were also in the same search business. But to arrive at the same page, you had to work more and took you hours of surfing. Now google has it all arranged in order of relevance and by an engine that works on Latent Semantic Algorithm. And boy, you should see the way they work.

So every day, more and more technology is evolving to save our time. Time saved, so that we can work more. What do you think makes a GDP rise. The same population of 100 was working yesterday and producing something worth 100 people. But today the 100 people are producing as if 1000 people were living in the country. Our country might have the highest population. But effective population is higher in United States. That is, with 100 people in our country we will produce 100 rupees, But in U.S. same hundred people will produce 5000 rupees.
So effective population of our country is suppose 100 then effective population of U.S. can be said as 5000/100= 500.
So we may be grater in numbers, but they are much greater than us in numbers. And our workaholic civilization is producing as if not 6 billion people will produce, but as if 6 billion thousand people will produce. Its just that the rest of the people are non-existent.

After writing the above things I have realized that what I have stated above is a cool way of looking at things and may be some sort of index can be made out of it. I mean real academic stuff with all the jargons. Because most of the knowledge is actually making a simpler way to understand things. Like how Newton with his theory, that doesn't work anywhere except the see-able world(I mean the larger bodies or the subatomic world) is knowledge. Because he helps us make sense out of this world and makes it fairly predictable. Hmmmm....So are we afraid of an unpredictable world.....????

If I keep on writing, I will never stop. Because one idea leads to another and another. I had promised myself that all I will write is what Marilyn Manson said. But look where have I ended up. So I better go back and watch the movie.
Keep thinking

Godspeed

Hot Seat

Right now i was in a place where i get most of the ideas. Yeah, the Hot seat, The Philosophical Chambers, The toilet seat as some people know it. I donot know why, but most of the times ideas hit me like eureka, and i perfectly understand that how archemedes must have shouted "eureka" after he came out. Sad, i can't do the same.

Today three ideas came to me.

1. I can be an author after all. All i have to do is complete 100 or 150 or maybe 200 posts on the blog and then get them published. I donot think that whatever i write over here is bullshit. Many a times it has happened, that i have independently come to a conclusion, and later on read that some great man has written them centuries ago. So the chances are good that whatever i think can be quoted later on. Because one forgets what's said in a book like "five point someone", but the stuff i write on, can be there for many years.
2. The second thought that came was that people essentially want to sin, and they want people to convince them that sinning is not bad. They are looking for logical explainations and proper reasons to convince them that whatever they are doing bad is actually okay. Nietzsche, Freud, Darwin, Osho, Newton, Copernicus, Voltaire and Marx are some of the people who either came out with theories that suggested that sinning is okay, or that God is absent.
   
3. You have the right to be proud of yourself. The reason is simple. You have certain things, and you donot have certain things. So either you can be ashamed of what you donot have or be proud of what you have. Half(or is it all??) the religions in the world say that "pride comes before fall". But you have a choice there, in case you missed the point. So you can be as proud as you want, just if you believe the sentence and/or are ready to take the risk.

Coming back to point 2. wasn't it Marx who said that "religion is the opium of the masses"?? Wasn't Voltaire the person who said that " If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent one"???? Hasn't Osho been popular because he said that " When you reach the culmination in sex, then for that one fraction of a second, for one moment, you are impervious to anything, you are in ecstacy, the same ecstacy that you attain whn you are in samadhi"??

May be that is one of the reasons why Marx was so popular. He abolished religion. The benefit was that now you just have to follow law, and forget God altogether. So conscience doesn't figure in. Because according to the same law, you are "innocent until proven guilty". So you could go on and sin as much as you want and not feel guilty about it, because you haven't been caught. There was no eye from heaven watching you.
The down side came to be that along with the eye, there was no heaven either. So what about the poor and the down trodden who could some how live their life believing that they will at least have a good life when they die? And who is the big brother who will help the weak, and everone at some point of life, does feel weak, and needs support. Now all of us aren't rational human beings who would just say that "Okay, there is no God, and i have my own responsibility, and whatever happens to me is because we caused it(internal locus of control)"

The element of romanticism was lacking. God used to be a popular tool before Marx. Simple, because if you succeded, that was because of your own effort, and if you failed, that was because of God moving in mysterious ways. In absense of God, the whole cause and effect cycle went haywire. Half the things were explained by Science. But what about things where science failed? Who was causing those things?

And would you find it easier to explain "The Big Bang theory" or "The String theory" to a peasant, or just our "Mysterious God"?? Because to explain these reasons for creation of universe, or its inner workings, you have to have the peasant educated, if you have him educated, he will not just understand these theories, but many other theories which you wouldn't want him to understand. Plus after he is educated, he can no more be a peasant....can he??? OOF... what a vicious circle......Just bring back the God...damn it!!!

But the day is not far away when it will become easier to explain these theories to peasants. Then as science works, either universe was created either by Big Bang or by God as both cannot be logically possible. And God has said in "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."(Matthew 12:30) So both cannot definitely co-exist. Or was it that God created the Big Bang?? Then what about Genesis and the seven days of creation?

So when that day comes when all of us think, or even a reasonable majority thinks that universe was created by Big Bang(and even as you read this, some scientist in some corner of the world must be working to seal the gaps in the theory, or come out with a better theory still) theory of God will be in a confused state. To believe or not to believe, that will be the question. The irony is that the Big Bang theory was given by a Belgian Priest called Georges Lemaître!!!!!!!

Well if you find Big Bang too easy to understand for your level of intellect, or you are the type that exists on modernism, there is another theory doing rounds called the "Ekpyrotic theory" or the "Brane storm" theory, with 5-dimensions, lot of maths, and of course your favourate, the Big Bang.

I love the way i wander off, i mean you must have noticed that i started off from a toilet seat and right now am discussing God and Ekpyrotic theories and all. Is't it?

So bingo, coming back to what i was saying. God is about to vanish. When i say God, I mean the concept of God.Donot think that it won't just because it hasn't happened in a gazillion years. Capitalism is working hard towards it. Now wait a minute. Did i say Capitalism?? Wasn't it Communism who was working hard towards it? Well, as i always say, some ideas just have their time. Hadn't Newton come out with the discovery(yeah, it was a discovery) some one else would have. Its just like a movie. Once the hero has killed or defeated the villain, the movie has to end. In the same way, when enought theories have been put forward for another invention or discovery, that is bound to happen. In the same way, the time to abolish the theory of God has coem, and actually has been long overdue.
Scientists have been working hard over the centuries to give all the answers to questions where we needed the concept God to do the explaining. now you can no more be burnt on stake just because you say that you worship satan(actually accepting the presence of satan or for that matter God is equal to believing that there is God). So your life is safe even if you deny God, because your life is being protected by law. Law is supporting you as well as them. Gone are the days when Heretics used to be burnt on the cross. What a big leap.

Because doesn't jurisprudence according to Jeremy Bentham follow the rule of "utility". Or that law is good or bad depending upon whether or not it increased general happiness of the population. And so if a law is still there, and not being planned to change, that doesn't kill people who disbelieve in God or punish them in any way must be bringing "increased general happiness of the population".

Altruism cannot be achieved because of the "theory of commons" which illustrates that in a situation where resources are common and people are selfish, the fortune will always favor the person who is selfish and works against the principle of "common good". In such a society, only such a person will be able to benefit, who believs in selfishness or atleast a principle of "tit for tat". This is well illustrated in the game theory's "The classical prisoner's dilemma", where when two people who have been caught and seperated by police for questioning have the following options

Prisoner A Stays Silent	Prisoner A Betrays

Prisoner B Stays Silent	Both serve six months	Prisoner B serves ten years; Prisoner A goes free
Prisoner B Betrays	Prisoner A serves ten years; Prisoner B goes free	Both serve two years

both the prisoners will always betray each other and like to get a sentence of two years rather than cooperate and get a simple sentence of 6 months because one will simply work towards his own self interest( remember adam smit's theory of the invisible hand ??) and choose not to trust the other.

So meanwhile, remain confused, because i am too. And i will come on later and add to the blog. Because i have written too much and spent too much time here. So Adios.

Godspeed

Who the hell was Nietzsche???

Friedrich Nietzsche was a German philosopher of the late 19th century who challenged the foundations of traditional morality and Christianity. He believed in life, creativity, health, and the realities of the world we live in, rather than those situated in a world beyond. Central to Nietzsche's philosophy is the idea of "life-affirmation," which involves an honest questioning of all doctrines which drain life's energies, however socially prevalent those views might be. Often referred to as one of the first "existentialist" philosophers, Nietzsche has inspired leading figures in all walks of cultural life, including dancers, poets, novelists, painters, psychologists, philosophers, sociologists and social revolutionaries.

LIFE Of This Great Philosopher

In the small German town of Röcken bei Lützen, located in a rural farmland area southwest of Leipzig, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche was born at approximately 10:00am on October 15, 1844. The date coincided with the 49th birthday of the Prussian King, Friedrich Wilhelm IV, after whom Nietzsche was named, and who had been responsible for Nietzsche's father's appointment as Röcken's town minister. When Nietzsche was 4 years old, his father, Karl Ludwig Nietzsche (1813-1849) died from a brain ailment, and the death of Nietzsche's two-year-old brother, Joseph, followed six months later.

From the ages of 14 to 19, Nietzsche attended a first-rate boarding school, Schulpforta, located not far from Naumburg, where he prepared for university studies.

After graduating from Schulpforta, Nietzsche entered the University of Bonn in 1864 as a theology and philology student, but his interests gravitated more exclusively towards philology -- a discipline which then centered upon the interpretation of classical and biblical texts. As a philology student, Nietzsche attended lectures by Otto Jahn (1813-1869) and Friedrich Wilhelm Ritschl (1806-1876). Jahn was a biographer of Mozart who had studied at the University of Berlin under Karl Lachmann (1793-1851) -- a philologist known both for his studies of the Roman philosopher Lucretius and for having developed the genealogical method in textual recension; Ritschl was a classics scholar whose work centered on the Roman comic poet Plautus (254-184 BC). Inspired by Ritschl, and following him to the University of Leipzig in 1865 -- an institution located closer to Nietzsche's hometown of Naumburg -- Nietzsche quickly established his own academic reputation through his published essays on Aristotle, Theognis and Simonides.

Momentous for Nietzsche in 1865 was his accidental discovery of Arthur Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation (1818) in a local bookstore. He was then 21. Schopenhauer's atheistic and turbulent vision of the world, in conjunction with his highest praise of music as an art form, captured Nietzsche's imagination, and the extent to which the "cadaverous perfume" of Schopenhauer's world-view continued to permeate Nietzsche's mature thought is still a matter of scholarly debate. After discovering Schopenhauer, Nietzsche read F.A. Lange's newly-published History of Materialism and Critique of its Present Significance (1866) -- a work which criticized materialist metaphysical theories from the standpoint of Kant's critique of metaphysics in general, and attracted Nietzsche's interest in its view that metaphysical speculation is an expression of poetic illusion.

In 1867, as he approached the age of 23, Nietzsche entered his required military service and was assigned to an equestrian field artillery regiment close to Naumburg, during which time he lived at home with his mother. While attempting to leap-mount into the saddle upon a particularly unruly horse, he suffered a serious chest injury and was put on sick leave after his chest wound refused to heal.

The Swiss university offered Nietzsche the position on the classical philology faculty at the University of Basel, and he began teaching there in May, 1869, at the extraordinary age of 24.

Never in outstanding health, further complications arose from Nietzsche's August-October 1870 service as a hospital attendant during the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71). He witnessed the traumatic effects of battle, took close care of wounded soldiers, contracted diphtheria and dysentery, and subsequently experienced a painful variety of health difficulties for the rest of his life.

Nietzsche's enthusiasm for Schopenhauer, his studies in classical philology, his reading of Lange, and his frustration with the contemporary German culture, coalesced in his first book -- The Birth of Tragedy (1872) -- which was published when he was 28.A biting critical reaction by the young and promising philologist, Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff (1848-1931), dampened the book's reception among scholars.

In 1876, at age 32, Nietzsche made an unsuccessful marriage proposal to a Dutch piano student in Geneva named Mathilde Trampedach. During this time, Nietzsche completed a series of four studies on contemporary German culture -- the Unfashionable Observations (1873-76) -- which focussed, respectively, upon the historian of religion and culture critic, David Strauss, issues concerning the social value of historiography, and Arthur Schopenhauer and Richard Wagner as inspirations for new cultural standards.

Near the end of his university career, Nietzsche completed Human, All-Too-Human (1878) -- a book which marked a turning point in his philosophical style. Despite the unflattering review of The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche remained respected in his professorial position in Basel, but his ailing health, which led to migraine headaches, eyesight problems and vomiting, necessitated his resignation from the university in June, 1879.

From 1880 until his collapse in January 1889, Nietzsche led a wandering, gypsy-like existence as a "stateless" person (having given up his German citizenship, and not having acquired Swiss citizenship), circling almost annually between his mother's house in Naumburg and various French, Swiss, German and Italian cities.

On a visit to Rome in 1882, Nietzsche, now at age thirty-seven, met Lou Salomé, a twenty-one-year-old Russian woman who was studying philosophy and theology in Zurich. He soon fell in love with her, and offered his hand in marriage. She declined

These nomadic years were the occasion of Nietzsche's main works, among which are Daybreak (1881), The Gay Science (1882), Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883-85), Beyond Good and Evil (1886), and On the Genealogy of Morals (1887). Nietzsche's final active year, 1888, saw the completion of The Case of Wagner (May-August 1888), Twilight of the Idols (August-September 1888), The Antichrist (September 1888), Ecce Homo (October-November 1888) and Nietzsche Contra Wagner (December 1888).

On the morning of January 3, 1889, while in Turin, Nietzsche experienced a mental breakdown which left him an invalid for the rest of his life. Upon witnessing a horse being whipped by a coachman at the Piazza Carlo Alberto, Nietzsche threw his arms around the horse's neck and collapsed, never to return to full sanity.

During his creative years, Nietzsche struggled to bring his writings into print and never doubted that his books would have a lasting cultural effect. He did not live long enough to experience his world-historical influence, but he had a brief glimpse of his growing intellectual importance in discovering that he was the subject of 1888 lectures given by Georg Brandes (Georg Morris Cohen) at the University of Copenhagen, with whom he corresponded. Nietzsche's collapse, however, followed soon thereafter.

On August 25, 1900, Nietzsche died in the villa as he approached his 56th year, apparently of pneumonia in combination with a stroke. His body was then transported to the family gravesite directly beside the church in Röcken bei Lützen, where his mother and sister now also rest.

Nietzsche

After Bertrand Russel, I had to post Quotes by Nietzsche. I don't know why wasn't i born earlier. Then these thoughts would have been my thoughts, but sigh.....no use, because what i think has already been thought and what conclusion i draw independently have already been drawn. So all i can do is thank, that they were said so beautifully.

As Usual i stand by every word, letter and sentence that are below.

Godspeed

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

A great value of antiquity lies in the fact that its writings are the only ones that modern men still read with exactness.

A letter is an unannounced visit, the postman the agent of rude surprises. One ought to reserve an hour a week for receiving letters and afterwards take a bath.

A pair of powerful spectacles has sometimes sufficed to cure a person in love.

A subject for a great poet would be God's boredom after the seventh day of creation.

A woman may very well form a friendship with a man, but for this to endure, it must be assisted by a little physical antipathy.

After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands.

Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent.

All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses.

All in all, punishment hardens and renders people more insensible; it concentrates; it increases the feeling of estrangement; it strengthens the power of resistance.

All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.

All truth is simple... is that not doubly a lie?

And be on they guard against the good and the just! They would fain curcify those who devise their own virtue - they hate the lonesome ones.

And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh.

Arrogance on the part of the meritorious is even more offensive to us than the arrogance of those without merit: for merit itself is offensive.

Art is not merely an imitation of the reality of nature, but in truth a metaphysical supplement to the reality of nature, placed alongside thereof for its conquest.

At bottom every man knows well enough that he is a unique being, only once on this earth; and by no extraordinary chance will such a marvelously picturesque piece of diversity in unity as he is, ever be put together a second time.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.

Believe me! The secret of reaping the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment from life is to live dangerously!

Blessed are the forgetful: for they get the better even of their blunders.

Character is determined more by the lack of certain experiences than by those one has had.

Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.

Courageous, untroubled, mocking and violent-that is what Wisdom wants us to be. Wisdom is a woman, and loves only a warrior.

Distrust everyone in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!

Does wisdom perhaps appear on the earth as a raven which is inspired by the smell of carrion?

Egoism is the very essence of a noble soul.

Enduring habits I hate... Yes, at the very bottom of my soul I feel grateful to all my misery and bouts of sickness and everything about me that is imperfect, because this sort of thing leaves me with a hundred backdoors through which I can escape from enduring habits.

Experience, as a desire for experience, does not come off. We must not study ourselves while having an experience.

Extreme positions are not succeeded by moderate ones, but by contrary extreme positions.

Faith: not wanting to know what is true.

Fanatics are picturesque, mankind would rather see gestures than listen to reasons.

Fear is the mother of morality.

For the woman, the man is a means: the end is always the child.

God is a thought who makes crooked all that is straight.

Great indebtedness does not make men grateful, but vengeful; and if a little charity is not forgotten, it turns into a gnawing worm.

He that humbleth himself wishes to be exalted.

He who cannot give anything away cannot feel anything either.

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. Is not life a hundred times too short for us to bore ourselves?

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.

Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man.

I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage.

I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time.

I love those who do not know how to live for today.

Idleness is the parent of psychology.

If a woman possesses manly virtues one should run away from her; and if she does not possess them she runs away from herself.

If there is something to pardon in everything, there is also something to condemn.

In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point.

In every real man a child is hidden that wants to play.

In heaven, all the interesting people are missing.

In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.

In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad.

In the consciousness of the truth he has perceived, man now sees everywhere only the awfulness or the absurdity of existence and loathing seizes him.

Is man one of God's blunders? Or is God one of man's blunders?

It is always consoling to think of suicide: in that way one gets through many a bad night.

It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!

It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book.

It is not a lack of love, but a lack of friendship that makes unhappy marriages.

Let us beware of saying that death is the opposite of life. The living being is only a species of the dead, and a very rare species.

Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory it too good.

Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, few in pursuit of the goal.

Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual.

Necessity is not an established fact, but an interpretation.

No one lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

Not by wrath does one kill, but by laughter.

Not necessity, not desire - no, the love of power is the demon of men. Let them have everything - health, food, a place to live, entertainment - they are and remain unhappy and low-spirited: for the demon waits and waits and will be satisfied.

Not when truth is dirty, but when it is shallow, does the enlightened man dislike to wade into its waters.

Nothing has been purchased more dearly than the little bit of reason and sense of freedom which now constitutes our pride.

Nothing is beautiful, only man: on this piece of naivete rests all aesthetics, it is the first truth of aesthetics. Let us immediately add its second: nothing is ugly but degenerate man - the domain of aesthetic judgment is therewith defined.

Of all that is written, I love only what a person has written with his own blood.

On the mountains of truth you can never climb in vain: either you will reach a point higher up today, or you will be training your powers so that you will be able to climb higher tomorrow.

Once spirit was God, then it became man, and now it is even becoming mob.

One has to pay dearly for immortality; one has to die several times while one is still alive.

One may sometimes tell a lie, but the grimace that accompanies it tells the truth.

One often contradicts an opinion when what is uncongenial is really the tone in which it was conveyed.

One should die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly.

Only sick music makes money today.

Our treasure lies in the beehive of our knowledge. We are perpetually on the way thither, being by nature winged insects and honey gatherers of the mind.

Out of damp and gloomy days, out of solitude, out of loveless words directed at us, conclusions grow up in us like fungus: one morning they are there, we know not how, and they gaze upon us, morose and gray. Woe to the thinker who is not the gardener but only the soil of the plants that grow in him.

People who have given us their complete confidence believe that they have a right to ours. The inference is false, a gift confers no rights.

Perhaps I know best why it is man alone who laughs; he alone suffers so deeply that he had to invent laughter.

Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness.

Shared joys make a friend, not shared sufferings.

Sleeping is no mean art: for its sake one must stay awake all day.

Success has always been a great liar.

Talking much about oneself can also be a means to conceal oneself.

That which does not kill us makes us stronger.

The "kingdom of Heaven" is a condition of the heart - not something that comes "upon the earth" or "after death."

The aphorism in which I am the first master among Germans, are the forms of "eternity"; my ambition is to say in ten sentences what everyone else says in a book - what everyone else does not say in a book.

The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy.

The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.

The doer alone learneth.

The essence of all beautiful art, all great art, is gratitude.

The future influences the present just as much as the past.

The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper.

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.

The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it.

The lie is a condition of life.

The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends.

The most common lie is that which one lies to himself; lying to others is relatively an exception.

The most spiritual human beings, assuming they are the most courageous, also experience by far the most painful tragedies: but it is precisely for this reason that they honor life, because it brings against them its most formidable weapons.

The press, the machine, the railway, the telegraph are premises whose thousand-year conclusion no one has yet dared to draw.

The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.

The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.

The word "Christianity" is already a misunderstanding - in reality there has been only one Christian, and he died on the Cross.

There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths.

There are no facts, only interpretations.

There cannot be a God because if there were one, I could not believe that I was not He.

There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness.

There is in general good reason to suppose that in several respects the gods could all benefit from instruction by us human beings. We humans are - more humane.

There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy.

This secret spoke Life herself unto me: "Behold," said she, "I am that which must ever surpass itself."

Thoughts are the shadows of our sensations - always darker, emptier, simpler than these.

To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled - because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.

To forget one's purpose is the commonest form of stupidity.

To use the same words is not a sufficient guarantee of understanding; one must use the same words for the same genus of inward experience; ultimately one must have one's experiences in common.

Two great European narcotics, alcohol and Christianity.

Undeserved praise causes more pangs of conscience later than undeserved blame, but probably only for this reason, that our power of judgment are more completely exposed by being over praised than by being unjustly underestimated.

What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man.

When marrying, ask yourself this question: Do you believe that you will be able to converse well with this person into your old age? Everything else in marriage is transitory.

When one does away with oneself one does the most estimable thing possible: one thereby almost deserves to live.

When one has not had a good father, one must create one.

Whenever I climb I am followed by a dog called 'Ego'.

Whoever battles with monsters had better see that it does not turn him into a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Without music, life would be a mistake.

Woman was God's second mistake.

Women are considered deep - why? Because one can never discover any bottom to them. Women are not even shallow.

Women can form a friendship with a man very well; but to preserve it - to that end a slight physical antipathy must probably help.

You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.