The Prerequisites Of Possibility

This is a really funny and inspirational TED Talks talk by Emily Levine where she speaks about everything and how she has a theory for it. This particular talk was also a hit because of the way it challenged many preconceived notions by especially questioning the methods of observation of reality.

After listening to this talk, I was reminded of an argument me and 2 of my friends had had a few months ago. We were traveling back to our hostel from outside by bus and found ourselves bored. In order to liven things up, I asked Aditya about his views on this fact: “Communist countries don’t fare well in this world, and that’s a known thing. But is it because of Communism itself or is it because of the many sanctions imposed on it by capitalist nations?” Of course, the answer to this question might exist out there but all I wanted was his views, which he assiduously went on to elucidate upon. One of the points he touched on was the persistent economic disparity between people living under the umbra of a closed economy and those living in an open one.

I’d like to use this particular argument and point out two very striking aspects of it that define its arguing power. Every argument has two sides – and I’m not talking about the “priori” and  “posteriori” – but what I call the assurance density. Although the term might sound hi-fi, what I mean is that when an argument has a high assurance density, it is capable of driving the point home comfortably and, as a result, finds it easy to convince (or assure) others about its validity. Now, this is just the first side of the coin: what the argument does and how well it does it.

The second side is what the argument itself postulates – the theory or the subject matter it carries and is supposed to convey. (Why I thought of this during Aditya’s argument was because there was a particular way he took to it that clearly brought out the importance of verbal structuring and how it could dominate over the content.)

Now, let’s say someone’s made the following statement: “coffee tastes better when it’s cold.”

The first side would be the its assurance density. Do you think this argument does its job? I think it does because it seems to concern a very trivial matter and could well be an argument between a son and his mother. Because of that, the structure of the argument seems appropriate: the boy is introducing his subject, and then he’s using it as a subject of one of his personal wants – that of his taste – and he’s also giving a solution for it (“when it’s cold”). Subject-verb-object structure. Good boy.

The second thing about this argument is that the boy is asking for cold coffee. If he’s given to having frequent illnesses or displaying a caffeine allergy, then cold coffee or coffee itself may not be advisable. In this case, we have insufficient information to classify the argument as valid or invalid.

And this is where I say what I’ve wanted to say for the past 3 minutes: there are two sides to any argument – the structure and the information – that make it recognisable as a statement employed to signify conflict or agreement; conflict mostly.

To refer back to the TED Talk at the top of this post, Emily Levine made me think whether everything in this universe has 2 such aspects to it: a function and a rule that governed it. In fact, if you looked here, you’d find that Paul Romer chooses to put it as “technology” and “rules” as constituents of an “idea”. I’m sure you must be thinking, “My god! It took this dumbass so much time to get here!” It’s fine. What matters is I did! Anyway, what’s striking about this universality of behavior is that it’s like nature itself has put forth a commandment that everything in the universe must conform to. This could be one of the fundamental rules of everything – a theory.

I’m sure all of you must be aware of the bad things about theories – they theorize, they seem very ambiguous on extremely specific (and sometimes relevant) specific subject matter and they’re all filled with squiggly symbols. But the one good thing about them overshadows all of that. They provide everyone working with them a basis, a platform to stand on continue from there, a fallback option. Now, my theory seems infallible enough. But what can I build on top of it?

I’ve decided that instead of building anything on top of it, I’ll use it as the mother of other such standalones, smaller though, that build and define anything from a mom-son argument to Keplerian astronomical systems. Now, how do I begin?

Self-questioning for the win.

What do I have in hand? I have a theory that dictates all kinds of behavior of all kinds of things by saying that they have two inseparable components: a rule specified by nature and a function specified by content.

What do I infer from it? If you’d break it down, you’ll see that the behavior is governed by two elements – one from the outside and one from the inside. Therefore, anything that has a function and a rule attributable to itself can definitely exist. As an axiom, anything that exists has a definite function governed by a definite rule.

What are the implications? If one of us can come up with a biological function that permits rhinoceroses to give birth to baby dragons and then fortify it with a ruling system, then it will happen at sometime in the future (if it already hasn’t!). As a result, the theory becomes a prerequisite of possibility. Now, what we have to be careful about now is contradictions. Is there a case where such a function-rule-possibility (FRP) system will fail? Possible. Perhaps I can use the FRP system itself to come up with a contradicting scenario!

Anyway, what I’ve deduced is that this FRP system could indeed be a standalone system that could provide the sort of support that further verifies any given system’s functional veracity. However, the hypothesis is not perfected yet. Again, before I forget, the answer to this particular question could already be out there, but what I’m doing on this blog is finding things out for myself because I’ve found that once you read about all kinds of thoughts and philosophies, coming to an objective conclusion about somethings can become difficult. The influence in such cases becomes dominating and at one point, you can’t even say if that’s how you’d intend things to happen.

I’ve to confess here that I began this post with a completely different content in mind. As I began writing and discovering things for myself, I had to change the title 6 times and finally leave it at ‘The Prerequisites Of Possibility’. That’s one reason I like three things: TED, self-questioning and my blog.

The Localised Dilution of Resources: A look at Paul Romer's 'Charter City' Concept

This is a TED Talk by Paul Romer, a professor who left his job at Stanford to pursue his very revolutionary idea of the ‘Charter City’. In this talk, he emphasises on the power of rules, and how they guide the technology which it needs to actualise ideas. This he conveys with the following image.

Ideas

Now, rules are the little builders that erect walls within a system, the walls that will bring to life guiding paths for data to move in and out. They specify what can happen and what can’t. With the right technology, what rules can do is not only bring to life ideas – which they make possible because they bring to life the goals that the idea has in mind – but also behave as administrative interfaces between the intelligence that has put them in place and the machinery that will do the manufacturing. For example, in a car, the gearbox behaves like a rule that creates smaller rules. The engine of the car produces power which is conveyed to the wheels by means of a crankshaft. By bringing in the gearbox, I am able to enforce a set of rules in the system. If I now set the gear to ‘R’, the system will deliver outputs of a different kind by moving the car backwards.

CAR = ENGINE + GEARBOX + WHEELS

Similarly,

RULES = BEHAVIOR + INTERFACE

In essence, they govern systems by enabling the incorporation of ideas in the working machinery.

When Romer talks about the good rules and the bad rules, I believe that he is talking about the behavior of any rule in general. A good rule is that which makes the car move backwards when the gear is set to ‘R’ and forward when set to anything else. A bad rule can either be a car that doesn’t move when a gear is changed or that which behaves in opposing manners.

That being said, I was thinking of my ocuntry, India, and how these good rules and bad rules can be identified within its administrative cogs, and how those Charter Cities can be brought to life. Because, just as much as Romer points out to the examples of North and South Korea, and Cuba and Canada, he is essentially pointing to regions in the world where neighboring populations have access to disproportionate amounts of resources because of a change in leadership.

Let me establish the analogy to India here. In India, the nation is divided into little states (on a linguistic basis) each of which has its own little government and a Chief Minister at the helms. Therefore, different states have different policies of governance. This means that they have different rules. This disparity, to note, is lessened by the fact that the central government is usually a coalition of these smaller state parties. But that doesn’t change the fact that when I cross the border from Tamil Nadu into Kerala, I’m exposed to (possibly) the same resources but in different amounts because of a change in leadership.

Let me question myself at this stage.

1. What are the problems I see? To answer this, imagine a vector field that illustrates the policies of the different states. Extrapolated on the India map, they would be a set of arrows pointing in different directions, some similar, representing their individual goals. If two arrows point in opposite directions, they don’t necessarily different goals, but different target groups. For example, Gujarat may target the farmer more than Rajasthan, which will eye the urban crowd. Although they do aid the nation from different directions, this fragmented governing as I see it has one pro and one con.
   1. Pro: With leaders governing smaller and smaller pieces of land, they are able to manage resources better than just one person and one party at the top.
   2. Con: Sometimes, resources are spread across borders and it may be beneficial for a region in particular to be governed in a specific way.
2. What are the bad rules? The bad rules I choose to see are with respect to this fragmented government policy of the nation.
3. What are the outcomes of these bad rules? As Romer says in his talk, villages are too small to experience the benefits of a good business and nations are too big. What is of just the right size is the city. In the Indian political context, when a state assumes the administrative parenthood of a city, it gives rise to a mismanagement of resources. Let me elucidate thorugh some points.
   1. Imagine a state that has a political capital and a commercial capital. Now, suppose that the state is so large that close to 95% of its population resides in small villages.
   2. A party gets elected to govern the state by a mostly rural turnout. Therefore, it is possible that the party that has come to power would have promised benefits for the farmer more than the software engineer.
   3. Now, the state can either be aligned with the central government’s interests or opposed to it.
      1. If aligned, then a nationalised subsidy for the farmer will be compounded by the state’s interests.
      2. If opposed, then the state will turn down the nationalised subsidy and bring into picture its own. Result? The state is wasting its resources.
   4. This localised policy shift will have two outcomes of its own.
      1. If aligned, the farmer will be receiving twice as many benefits as the software engineer.
      2. If opposed, the software engineer in the state will be moving at a pace different from a software engineer elsewhere in the nation.
   5. This particular scenario is quite relevant I would say to the current Indian sociopolitical scenario. Therefore, what the fragmented governance is giving rise to is an uneven utilisation of resources that in a region throughout which the resources are spread out – a localised resource concentration/dilution.
   6. The ultimate loser is the city. Since it is a collection of humans, the value of the city itself is derived from the capabilities of these people. When Romer says that the land value increases because the city’s inhabitants are earning more, it actually means that the city – through its location and other properties – has enabled its people to be like that. In the scenario I detailed out, the urban population is either exposed to a disparate quantity and quality of resources or does not avail them at all.
4. What is my solution? The set of bad rules that I attributed this problem to was the usage of a fragmented governing system. My solution is to fragment the already existing pieces into even smaller ones. And before you think I’m an idiot, let me tell you why that solve some problems.

Even though close to 64% of the Indian population is engaged in agrarian activities most of which falls into the rural category, it is the cities that make a difference. With the amount of data that is sent in and out of them, a city makes itself relevant by making sure the data comes from and reaches the right group of people. For starters, think of the two technologies that have substantially increased the nation’s crop output over the last 10 years.

The first was the launch of the INSAT weather satellite. A look at the following table will give you an idea of the benefits of the launch – which was a very important outcome of the utilisation of urban solutions.

Economic Benefits		Rs. Millions
	Program	Nature of Benefit	Estimate from Case Studies	Potential Benefit to the country in the Long-run
1.	National Drinking Water Technology Mission	Cost saving due to increase in success rate	2,560 (5 States)	5,000 – 8,000
2.	Urban Area Perspective / Development / Zonal / Amenities Plan for Cities / Towns	Cost saving in mapping	50.4 (6 Cities)	16,000 – 20,000
3.	Forest Working Plan	Cost saving in mapping	2,000 (200 Divisions)	11,860
4.	Potential Fishing Zone Advisories	Cost saving due to avoidance of trips in non-PFZ advisories	5,450	16,350
5.	Wasteland Mapping: Solid Land Reclamation	Productivity gain	990 (UP)	24,690
6.	Integrated Mission for Sustainable Development: Horticultural Development in Land With and Without Shrub	Gross income	Rs.0.20 to 0.40 (per hectare)	13,000 – 26,000
7.	Bio-prospecting for Medicinal Herbs	Value of Indian life saving drugs		800

(From http://epress.anu.edu.au/narayanan/mobile_devices/ch10s06.html)

The second technology that came to the aid of the farmer was the combined harvester-thresher, which reduced the duration of labor that was required to harvest and thresh a piece of land by substantial amounts.

In this fragmentation process, the nation could be divided down to form clearly discernible urban and rural regions. As I said earlier, it is important for the cities to be governed similar so that all cities in a particular region are availed similar qualities of the similar quantities of resources. Does this look like Communism on a broader scale? Perhaps. But what it ensures is that, with the democratization of information exchange through urban areas, there can be greater coordination towards acheiving common goals. At the same time, rural areas, specifically the agrarian ones, will receive greater and greater concentrations of useful information instead of what just the state has decided to give them.

In this fragmentation, which I call the second-degree fragmentation (SDF), the danger of there arising a difference in policies as a result of the installation of different state governments is eliminated. Secondly, the Charter Cities that Paul Romer suggested could be translated into this SDF picture in that all cities work as one super-city in terms of resource management and policy establishment.

I have two concerns at the end of this post.

1. With the current system set so firmly in its ways, bring in such a massive change is quite impossible. Therefore, if anyone has any such comments to put forth, please don’t do so. Instead, what I’d like to hear about is its theoretical validity.
2. I have not studied this subject (yet). There’s still a long time to go for me to be there. But before then, if you have anything to suggest or criticise (constructively), let me know.

Gregarious grammar, garrulous grammar

The following post deals with learning, knowledge and memory. It details the way humans learn language and assimilate grammatical technicalities to form phrases that depict their ideas. It also deals with the aspects of age and mental maturity, and how they affect learning processes.

—

Linguists studying the aspects of recognition and cognition regarding languages will tell you that younger children tend to absorb the structure of their native language (or any other) at a rate faster than their elders. You will have noticed that a child of 2-3 years will absorb the nuances of its native tongue in a matter of months – while once adolescence is passed, structured classes and guidance become necessary to do the same. Although this theory is only empirical to me, it is quite established in scientific circles with adequate proof to back it up. I would like to extend this same argument to one more facet of learning: that of expanding one’s grammar to accommodate newer words.

Here, before I continue, I’d like to introduce something called the grammatical circle of words. This circle represents all the words recognised by an individual as being usable on an everyday basis for him or her. To rephrase, these words will constitute a lexicon. The area of this circle will increase rapidly at the younger phases of one’s life, as detailed in the first paragraph of this post. The newborn child will go from knowing no language to knowing one in the span of a year, and the circle will expand from zero volume to a finitely large one. Bracketing this transformation will be a learning period in which the child will learn about all types of words, sentence structures and idea constructions. The act of pointing to an apple and crying will now become replaceable by “I want that apple because I’m hungry.” In this period, there will be a momentum that will characterize how fast the child learns such things. I could define it like this.

A1 = Initial number of words; A2 = Final number of words.

M = [ { ( A2 – A1 ) x 100 } / ( 365 x A1 ) ]

(i.e. Momentum = Percentage increase in number of words averaged over 1 year)

If the momentum is high (over a suitably long period of time), the child will have learnt 500 words as compared to another child with lesser momentum that learnt 300 words (example). My idea is that greater the momentum during this period, slower will be the acquisition of newer words later in life. By this, I mean that if the grammatical circle of words expanded very quickly in the earlier stages of one’s life, it will be more rigid towards the final cognitive stages. Now, let me give my explanation for it.

Say I learnt 1,000 words before I was 5. As a child of between 5 and 10 years of age, my circle of 1,000 words will be sufficient to detail to myself and to others what I see, hear and feel. If I find that there is a new experience that seems incapable of being described through the words I already know, I will learn a new word – “ostentatiously gregarious” the 1,001st – to be able to use the language more effectively. At this point, suppose I have a friend whom I’ve known for a long time, and that he’s displayed a larger momentum of learning. At the age of 5, if he knows 2,000 words, then it should suffice for him to not acquire any new words till, say, he’s 15. Growing up together, I’ll find that I’m learning new words at the rate of 10 per year while he is grammatically dormant. Now, at the age of 20, if I find that I need to learn 5 new words for a job I’m applying to, I’ll find it easier than him. Why? Because the momentum which I said bracketed the learning period is still greater than zero for me, so the learning period involved is longer for me than for my friend. His circle will have been completed will mine will still be expanding. I can accommodate, he can’t.

All of this is based on an (empirical) assumption on my part that the learning process I keep referring to happens only once in one’s life. Once it dies out (at an age corresponding to the completion of one’s postgraduate education), newer experiences no longer seem like solutions to remember but problems to tackle. At these stages, what has already been learnt yearns to be put into use, i.e. the application-oriented years of life. If the learning process is spread out through these first 20-25 years, the amount of knowledge is greater than when the process spans about 10-15 years. This could be because what we learn is encoded away in our memories as a collection of sights and sounds. If I were to read in a book the word “gregarious” at the age of 12 and know its meaning through the context of its usage, I will remember it for the next few years only when I can remember the context itself. If I were to encounter the same word when a friend of mine describes someone else so when I am 18, I will remember it for a longer time. The difference in these two cases is that, although the learning period is in effect, the latter is remembered in more forms than the former. When I am 50, there is a better chance of me recollecting something that has a sight, sound and texture associated with it than that which is triggered by the name of the book or a character in it.

When reading a piece of text that seems too hard to remember, one tends to ascribe the whole picture it brings to mind to a memory that is readily accessible by “mugging” it. When this happens, nerves in the head keep firing signals in a particular channel. With repetitive firing, the cognitive system tends to identify that particular channel as one that will be regular use and therefore keep it active. You will be able to better understand this phenomenon when you associate it with some languages in your life whose words you are slowly forgetting because you don’t use them often. Similarly, when a person grows older, his responsibilities also multiply given that fact that he will now have the physical strength to execute them. To supplant this strength, he will begin to use his past experiences as lessons so he learns to optimize his own performance. At these stages, what he has taught himself will now come forth in the form of actions and decisions. The nerves will now begin to fire in those channels that seem most necessary for that supplementation (some lessons will seem more useful than others).

If I had stopped learning new words at the age of 12, then the application-oriented stages of life will set in prematurely, and the nerves will begin to decode rather than continuing to encode. Due to the said prematurity, the necessity to learn a new word because of a strange experience will now tend to be tackled by using older words. So, since I’m 12, I’ll use the phrase “moves freely with people” instead of the word “gregarious”; at the same time, my 18 year old friend will learn it. Analogously, when I am 18, I may not be able to  properly define the word gregarious. The Venn diagram should help you.

The probability of recollection

If an event ‘A’ is associated with both sight and sound, {x,y} depicting the occurrence of the sight-event and sound-event being fired (resp., through Boolean logic), then one of the following will happen when the memory will need to be recollected:

1. {0,0}
2. {0,1}
3. {1,0}
4. {1,1}

Therefore, there is a 75% chance that ‘A’ will be remembered by the person. If, however, an event ‘B’ is associated with only sight (like a word being encountered in a novel), then there is only a 50% chance of its recollection:

1. {1}
2. {0}

Phew! I learnt a lot there!

Tribute to Times New Roman

Times New Roman was my first and longest-serving superheroine. Always called back into action when the overconfident newbie fails to live up to his promises, Times New Roman takes on the challenge without the slightest of murmurs and gets things done. She can’t fly, she can’t see through walls, she can’t halt speeding trucks in their tracks. What she can do is she can make them happen. There is not a hint of arrogance about her, and you can feel her humility boring into you. She does not ask for much; come to think of it, she asks for nothing. Her rewards are her moments – the willful verification of her veracity, the surrender you must enact unto her. She speaks not much, and when she does, she does so beautifully and with commensurate elegance. She compliments the blandiloquence of your imagery, she denigrates the stunted and the deformed.

Times New Roman

Times New Roman was born in 1932, the daughter of Plantin and the ideas of Stanley Morison and Victor Lardent. Times the newspaper was once criticized by Morison himself earlier in the same year, and the administration let him supervise the designing of the new font along with Lardent, who was an established typographer. The outcome of this oft-forgotten project was one of the most ubiquitous fonts of all time, a font that stayed with The Times for over 40 years. A daughter font, Georgia, is also very popular – the one you see on this page (the typographic difference between them is that Georgia has more prominent serifs).

Over the years, with the advent of digital typography threatening to phase out Times New Roman and her cousins, people began to regard the font itself as a symbol of the times past. TNR survived hundreds of wars, two of them devastating most of Europe and Asia. Media persons desperately digging for a story often locked horns with each other over the rights of the content and a newer angle no one had detected before, but the stories always came out through the mouth of TNR. There was something about her that people found hard to resist, a placid nonchalance that also sometimes disturbed the reader with an air of neutrality. Whether it was Marx, Fawkes, Stalin, Hitler, Truman or Gandhi, the Speaker of the wartorn parliament that is this world was always TNR, and rightly so. Stories from all corners, about all kinds of things, quotations uttered by men from splintered political factions – all of them found no favouritism with TNR. It would always be the same distance between the letters, between the words, between the sentences, between the eye that read them and the mind that interpreted them. Tell me, have you ever heard of any such thing as a Communist or a capitalist font? Although that sounds absurd, the designs imbued in the behaviour of TNR answers the question without hesitation. TNR is both. If not more.

Why I pay this tribute is because of two things. First, the digital age has made more things possible – a craftsman does not have to sit at his board for hours on end design each letter. There is the computer that performs all those millions of calculations in a second, and voila! ‘A’ has been sculpted. Times itself changed its font in the 1970s because of this typographic revolution. The second reason is that Microsoft, whose Office Word has long been a close associate of TNR (a relationship advertised by having TNR as the default font), has now introduced a new default – Calibri. Given a hundred more years, Calibri may perhaps prove its mettle. But it can never do what Times New Roman has done.

Dear TNR, I have not forgotten you.

The manifestation of argument in the great political debate

• Argument as government: In all, and especially, the industrial democracies of this world, the implementation of the decisions of the state as a discernible body on the functioning of the society is essentially a product of the great political debate. Even though a party has been elected to power, the basis of the presence of argument during the triumphant party’s tenure is contained in the fact that democracy does not halt at granting the citizen his vote, but at crediting him with having influenced the making of a decision in the senate. In fact, in a colloquial sense, democracy would indeed be perceived as the protection of the powers of the citizen on a national level at the very least. However, the strength of democracy lies not completely in the strength of this protection, but in the manifestation of these powers that have been safeguarded by it. As a result, in my opinion, democracy is not the modus operandi of a state post-polity, but the documented encouragement of debate and contention between different leaders and, eventually, different responsibilities. The face of the governing party is only the face of the nation for other states, but within, it is the citizen and rightly so. Argument, even a non-ideal one, dutifully fosters the inculcation of discipline and morality amongst the most narrow-minded amongst us, and when it is that the future of a burgeoning nation of a billion depends on the decisions of a volatile oligarchy, agreement and opposition are both equally essential in the making of a decision. One cannot afford to pin all of one’s hopes on the mindset of one man.

• Argument as representation of the voter:

The big picture

Drawn above is a simple representation of the electoral process in India. Voters from all over the nation vote to elect the central government, which may be a single party which manages to secure the minimum majority of 272 seats (out of a total of 543) in the lower house, Lok Sabha, or multiple parties that coalesce under the umbrella of a common goal. Once a party has been lofted to the center, a ministry is formed that manages the various portfolios. As I stated earlier, the decision of the citizenry in electing such and such a government is questioned in the senate when argument is used as a tool for decision-making. If the ruling party wins the argument, the investment of the voting populace is vindicated. If the ruling party (or parties) meets with formidable opposition that it cannot quell with sufficient conviction, we the people will have made a mistake, nay wronged.

• What the good arguer has: In his ‘Language and Responsibility’ (1977), noted linguist Noam Chomsky asks only the following from any man who has an opinion:

1. 1. The capability of facing the facts objectively,
   2. The usage of a rational line of common sense,
   3. A Cartesian sense of argument, per se, and
   4. A little skepticism.

Whenever there is some “breaking news” in the air, the various components of the mass media, especially the news channels on the television, turn to professionals in fields pertaining to the content of the news in order to extricate an opinion that is either valuable by itself or is made so by repeated broadcasts. Why this esotericism? Why can’t the chap behind the desk ask you and me if the country has to intervene in Angola? When the above factors suffice to define the good arguer, why is it that I must be in possession of compatible certification to but profess a one-line opinion? What must be discussed is the content and not my right to discuss it!

• Isolation of power by conserving argument: Arguments can be brought to life by interpreting information, and information is nothing but the lingual interpretation of an event, the interpretation being performed in order to transmit and convey it to people who are unaware of the occurrence of it. The information we assess and digest everyday is proportional as well as dependent on the ideals of the local government, which governs the information that it thinks its people need to come into contact with, and the ideas and opinions of the people around us that constitute the populace in general. With a democratic government ruling the central aspects of the Indian economy, finance, industry, society and other aspects of living and development, the interests of each individual vested in it demands productive work day in and day out. On the other hand, the ruling government, to carry out its wishes, needs people other than those who control its functions to fall in line with their solutions. Due to the embedding of this fundamental rule, as it were, in the roots of the structure of every democratic state, information can only play a greater role in the lives of the people of the state every day. The conveyance of this information happens through the media, viz. print, audio, and audiovisual. The print media includes newspapers, magazines, newsletters, articles, essays, stories and others; the audio media includes, prominently, radio channels; video comprises of information delivered via telebroadcasting, movies, etc. The radio and the television are two modern techniques that have stolen the limelight of sorts from the print media. Owing to advancements in technology, of these two, the audiovisual media is growing steadily as well as quickly, borrowing from the inherently faster conveyance of data, the greater accessibility, and, with the incorporation of a sense of personality, the notion of originality and being specific to a given set of peoples with respect to their ethnicity involved is also born. Therefore, keeping in mind the importance of such a medium, its regulation has to be handled with care and finesse in order to get across your message while maintaining the original intensity of the purpose and the frequency of conveying it. But in a large, immensely populous, and democratic nation like India, apart from the already very many number of television channels, there are many more being operated by political parties. Although this does not constitute any violation of any rule for that matter, using the medium as a method of propaganda is not something I would suggest. You can not initiate and run programs just because it’s there for you to. In a way, it violates the right to information. How? Information is only when it is factual and wholly interpretative in a neutral manner. When you tamper and mess with it in order to get across a message that has been interpreted in a biased manner, it is a misrepresentation of the event that has occurred. You are now putting specific ideas in the minds of the people, ideas that can invariably lead only to a single conclusion. Furthermore, but in a partly trivial way, political propaganda must always begin and end during the time of elections for the local or national government, and must be nonexistent at all other times unless it is being projected via the deeds of those elected to office. Telebroadcasting can not be considered as a deed because it is propaganda itself, and parties that use this as a tool to brainwash the plebian and proletarian population in their favour is wrong. You will notice that now, with everyone around you being highly opinionated about some political party or the other, the ability to think freely and objectively will be on the decline.

Welcome to the city

When you look at a city, it’s like reading the hopes, aspirations and pride of everyone who built it.

– Hugh Newell Jacobsen

There are two opposing schools of thought popular amongst philosophers called teleology and metaphysical naturalism. While the former dictates that we have eyes just to we can fulfill the purpose of sight, the latter has us believe that we can see because we have eyes. If one were to disregard both and instead notice the importance paid to the relationship between cause of effect, one will consequently observe that cannot exist without the occurrence of the other. It is the same with the wishes of mind and the desire it manifests in out actions. Whether or not we choose to understand it, has been present for eons and will inevitably persist. This has been evident ever since mankind, as we understand it be in form and function today, began to group itself into small communities that soon proved to be the fundamental and formative units of civilization. In what can only be termed as a systemic progression that involved man utilizing the natural resources around him, similar communities, which evidenced the possibility (or, to be more optimistic, the presence) of a common purpose of humanity itself, began to get drawn toward each other because of a few reasons. One of these included the fact that since each community had its own set of requirements in terms of the quantity and quality of those natural resources, those with similar demands had similar patterns of migration and settlement. This pattern was also the basis of the formation of little villages, towns and, eventually, large cities.

In India, the four largest cities of Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata are prime examples of such regionalistic concentrations. The population within these cities is very high, especially since the last three are coastal settlements. But once you step outside their limits, the density drops drastically. Although this drop in numbers could have been more gradual earlier on, the high slope indicates that people settling in such hotspots began to fare better economically and, thus, socially, which in turn led to a steady migration from rural to such urban settlements, which in turn led to an unnatural distribution of natural resources. For example, suppose a 1,000 nomads are looking for a suitable place to settle, when they chance upon a large lake. They decide to settle at one point, say Point A. At another point B, at the opposite side of the lake, there is a mountain range at the feet of which flourishes a herd of cows. The community chief decides to send a group of 200 people to B to hunt down the animals, skin them and put them up for trade. The 200 then proceed to settle down at B since it is a more convenient option. Now, there is a possibility of there emerging a propensity amongst those at B to trade their valuables from B itself instead of sending them down to A and then waiting for the return of the caravans. Such a decision seeming a logistically enhanced one, the settlement at B will now exhibit greater and perhaps accelerated growth rates. At this point, those from A will abandon their homes in favor of moving to B. As the settlement grows larger, the group will now, as a second step, seek to minimize the amount of inconvenience tolerated in the procurement of resources. Sitting at B, the people will now travel a particular distance from B, gather the resources and then return home. Since traveling longer distances entailed a greater number of inconveniences, the density of a particular resource will decrease exponentially along a radially outward direction beginning from the heart of the settlement.

Graph depicting density of resources

(The curve will climb up again, exponentially or not, once the distance from a particular settlement is large enough to ensure that no inhabitant will have ventured in those parts.)

Now, points A and B can be compared in real life to any one of the following pairs:

1. Rural and urban settlements: With the onset of industrialization, almost everything that man used – from the tools in manufacturing to the vehicles in procurement – leaped a giant leap from singular primitivism to a point where he could now put together different tools to make one ‘supertool’ that handled more than one job. With the forerunners being the automotive and shipping industries, other smaller manufacturers and, subsequently, their competitors were forced to switch to machine-labor. In the example above, the lake can be compared to the factories and warehouses that enhanced the availability of these machine parts.
2. Developing and developed nations: Similar to the first case, a developed nation has more resources – whether in terms of money or otherwise – to offer anyone who wants a shot at them. One good example would be how skilled software engineers from south India migrate to the Silicon Valley: the Indian has the skill, and the US has the resource.
3. At a simpler level, points A and B can be alternatively compared to summer and winter capitals of some states.

Now, at this point, cities employ the basis they have in the availability of resources and begin to flourish as economic hotbeds. By this, I mean that cities as a whole begin to realize the fluency its people will begin to have in terms of trading in resources other than the ones with which they established themselves. Up until this point in time, the inhabitants will have concentrated on developmental activities. Once it becomes evident that the resources circulating within the city have become self-sustainable, the limits of the settlement will begin to expand – in terms of size, population and, most importantly, as a new source of resources. Now, what will happen is something like ripples on water. This city will now behave like the lake, drawing skilled people towards it, simultaneously rejecting those who seem incapable of surviving in its environs (like the abandonment of A).

So, we have seen how a community is born, how it grows to become a city, and how a city itself begins to attract people from different parts of the nation. However, ultimately, what does a city represent in a non-utilitarian sense? How does it contribute to humanity as a whole instead of just to the nation that harbors it? If you go through the previous paragraph, you will find that the answer is simple. A city contributes to humanity as a whole not by giving away something that belongs to itself, but by manifesting the triumph that nestles silently in the nudges that it gives us when we think we have lost. In other words, a city is the first image that comes to mind when you might speak to me of humanity as a whole. When you might tell me that there are always some people who will find it in them to help me selflessly, I will think of a city first. In fact, when you live in a city, you will realize that it is just more than the shelter it first took form as. It transforms itself, blind to the eye and shielded from the piercing gaze of the mind, gradually consuming our sorrows for nutrition and purifying the air around us. We ignore it as it speaks of a mind of its own, and we shun it when it rains the day we leave for a different city, when the roads are bad, when we almost miss the flight we’ve to catch, when we finally board the flight and find that the journey has been delayed for an hour due to bad weather, when we land in a strange place later to find no friendliness lingering the air as it once did…

On the dominance of art

This is a thought I had a few hours back, and thought I’d put it down in order to see what else I discovered along the way.

Where is art? Art, today, is broad. I’ll save you all the jargon and leave it at “omnipresent”. Furthermore, it is discernible to the human eye not through the straightforward impact it has on the human mind, but through the interpretation it is often subjected to, the kind of interpretation that enables it to yield an inadvertent variety. There is art in a little girl’s frock that I might not see but you might. There is art in what seems like “noisy music” to the ardent death metal fan. One can only opine, but one can’t ever judge on the beauty of things. As an absolutist, I do believe that art has an absolute form, but I also believe that humankind can never produce it. To me, this ‘absolute art’ lies in our creation, our form, our purpose, and the meaning we come to infuse in our respective individual existences.

What is happening? Before I digress further, let me come to the point. The first argument I have to make is on the commercialization of perspective. By this, I have to borrow some ideas from the capitalist economy. In such economies, demand and supply are the primary influencing factors. The best way to vary their effect on the market is to alter the elements that generate them in the first place: the products, and the money. Both the producer and the purchaser handle them in sufficient amounts, but in capitalism, greater power is given to the purchaser. Similarly, in the world of art, we have landed up in an age of inevitable commercialization of all things beautiful (or not). These could have been due to various reasons, many of which I am incapable of pursuing, but it is indeed that because of one phenomenon: art forms of one type seem to have larger markets than art forms of another – as opposed to a reduced disparity some decades before.

Klimt’s ‘Golden Adele’ (1907), sold for $135 million

What is the effect this has had? This has led to the generation of strong influences that, more often than not, decide how many people look at a specific form of art. Take up the example of paintings and pottery. The great auction houses of London, Christie’s and Sotheby’s, are known to have sold paintings for upwards of a few million pounds. Has anyone ever heard of pottery being sold for that much? Why not? Ignoring a possible anthropological difference, the quickest conclusion is that the difference in demands is immense. Why is the demand immense? Because the works are valuable and provide for easy investment options. Why are they so valuable? Because their predecessors too held the same kind of value. And where did they obtain such values? From the people who bought them, the people who existed in that period. Although times have changed, perceptions have been held on to, often not in keeping with the contemporary conditions.

And what has this led to? In order to capitalize on what looks like an eternally growing market, artists will now begin to focus on paintings more than anything else – often irrespective of what their interests are. The utilitarian demands of life do surface at some points, and they cannot thus be blamed. Although what is happening cannot be termed a ‘crime’ and someone taken to task, this biased focus will magnify down the line, ultimately threatening to completely vaporize the market for a form of art that does not yield monetarily.

What can we do? If the effect is widespread, we can only make a difference over long periods of time. However, at the same time, we have no right to tell others what to appreciate and what not to appreciate. If you ask me, what we can do is make people aware of such effects. Instead of subduing the dominant art form, we can nurture the growth of the ignored.

The claims of a positivist: The reality of a painting on the wall

The revelation that I am a positivist, inadvertently made by me, is indeed profound. I was always of the ‘impression’ that what ever I wrote, whatever I discovered for myself, sprouted from the metaphysical speculation I often sink deep into. Metaphysics, with all its abstractions and interpretative variety, has been alluring me; every so often, when I sit down to think before a session of good and wholesome writing, it dangles a carrot in front of my eyes, and it promises me a wonderland. I am smitten, although it seems at first. To me, positivism is not a belief but an approach towards an idea that I would like to assume in order to understand it better. However, the idea I am approaching comes to light only through the magic of metaphysics. It is like my world is, in essence, defined by the fundamental conceptualizations of objecthood, reality, possibility, causality, etc.; but once I have understood the purpose behind their respective existences and the utilitarian impact they have in the physical world, I need quantification to be able to repeatedly recognize them. Let me take up an elucidatory scenario.

You are in a closed room, and on one of the walls, there hangs a painting. You are in the room, at the center, and looking at it. After some time, you turn around and look at the opposite wall. Now, can you tell me whether the painting behind you exists?

The painting on the wall

Of course, you will, at first, tell me that the painting indeed does for you just happened to see it hanging there. Yes or no? If yes, then the reality of the painting (an inanimate object devoid of senses) has been designated as true by your sight. Therefore, the painting existed because you saw it (thereby also verifying its objecthood). If you hadn’t seen the painting at all, would it have existed?

Again, your answer to this question can be yes or a no, but a more probable answer would be that “it is possible”. So there, we have another one of the metaphysical concepts: that of a possibility. Now, possibility can be understood easily: it is the chance a particular event has of occurring (or not occurring). We say it is a chance because we are not, in our conscious knowledge, endowed with the information necessary to arrive at a certain conclusion. Although whether this information will become known at all is subject to contention, the situation necessitating the understanding of the relationship between ourselves and the event occurring in the future exists nevertheless. And thus, it is a possibility.

Here, I have established for myself that there does exist objecthood, the kind recognizable only through the meaningful interpretation of the object. However, it is that employment of a codified and unified method (for ex. science) that helps me in objectively identifying the nature of their manifestation.

Do Communists really have no class?: Some clarifications.

Yesterday night, after I put up the post questioning the possible fallacies of Communism, I had a small chat online with a friend of mine who was studying law. He had a few questions for me, the answers to which I thought I had mentioned in the post itself. Once I give it a comprehensive read, I realised I had taken some concepts and ideas for granted. Here are the clarifications:

1. In the flowchart, I have not taken a just and an absolutely meritorious law for granted. I have only assumed it to be the origin of my arguments. If I were to give you a physical representation, a sheet of graph paper would be apt. To me, the origin {0,0} is out of focus; the “law” point rests at a different point {x,y}, the point at which law as a concept in life becomes necessary.
2. I have taken the law to be just and fair, the (possibly necessary) precursor to the birth of society as it exists today. What I mean is the ‘law’ which I have taken to be the embryo of equality and justice is a just law, if necessary in an absolutist sense.
3. The metaphor of the smoke against the white skies I have used to detail the relationship between equality and freedom must be noted when reading about an individual’s rights being “endowed”. Here, I am not refuting the naturalist who says individuals are born with rights; I am saying the rights as we know them, the rights as we seem to be able to invoke them in the halls of justice, are endowed with. In other words, the rights I am referring to are those with the law as a backdrop, and not those that exist simply from, say, an idealistic existentialist’s point of view.
4. And, yes, I am a positivist. 🙂

(Refer to ‘Some useful links‘ for further information.)

Do Communists really have no class?

It is always easier to understand the reasons that will compel a person to assume a neutral stance in an argument, but have you ever wondered why people in general haven’t been able to tolerate bias? Ask yourself that the next time you pick a fight with a friend. If someone intervenes, you expect him to be either neutral in the judgment delivery or biased in your favor. When the latter happens, your opponent will deny the judgment.

• Observing the flowchart, you can see that from the presence of a set of laws that can effectively establish eventual governance, there arise the two fundamental and integral concepts of justice and equality. The law must be able to recognize and punish wrong-doings, and the law must treat all those who bow down to it equally – these, by definition.
• With equality comes freedom. In order to further elaborate on the relationship between the two, let me give you an example. When a group of people are free to think and do as they please, if one amongst them is endowed with a greater number of rights than all the others, then the rest of them will, in essence, be denied that one “special” right. That is not equality any more, is it? Reversing this process, if one were to define equality itself based upon a certain group of common rights and duties, then the presence of those rights and duties will indicate the presence of freedom.
• Just as the human mind comprehends the external world in different ways, the freedom it senses is interpreted in different ways. Importantly, there are the freedoms of thought, action and worship. The doings that arise out of the exercising of these permissions will always be constrained by the law, for it is because of the law that they have come into effect as tangible principles. Metaphorically, it is like trying to see smoke. If you attempt to view it in the darkness or against gray skies, it will be futile. But against a bright white sky, it will be visible in its full glory. In our case, freedom and equality are like the smoke, and the law is the white sky.
• When a government is instituted (irrespective of the methods through which it came into power), it means two things: (i) the nation will now have a leader or a group of leaders whose job will not only be to lead the citizens, but (ii) also to be able to claim responsibility for any of the nation’s actions per se. Although this group of people will still belong to the society at large, the state they will now build and constitute will be a separate entity because the end goals of the bodies will be different. For the society, there will exist a subconscious tendency toward on overall betterment in terms of those currencies the world around them employs to measure one’s extent of success in life. In other words, when more money is equated to greater success, the society will function towards that success by trying to acquire that much money. As for the government, it will come to define its own successes in order to establish the nation as a whole as the manifestation of a particular idea on the world map – and the accomplishment of this will again involve ‘peer perceptions’.
• When an installed government finds it desirable to adopt the same principles as its constituent societal model does, then it assumes a stance of neutrality. Again, to establish a metaphor, let’s take up relative motion. When two cars moving on a highway are doing so at the same velocity, albeit one greater than the other, and with no acceleration, the distance between the cars will be the same. Similarly, with the state as the first car and the society as the second, zero acceleration and equal velocities will ensure that the spacial disparity between them is only indicative of the number of processes involved in the transformation of the goals.

And now that I have explained the flowchart, can you answer the following question(s)?

Is this need for equality an inherent compulsion, or does the human psyche derive such a requirement from some mysterious source around us? Is this behavior natural, or has it been acquired through evolution?

I ask because the ‘equality’ box in the chart has been my self-discovered source for all that I have written. Assuming that this equality does not exist, I will be forced to assume that there do exist some people who favor a tyranny. That will bring into effect the varying degrees of powerplay, the even more numerous power equations and, ultimately, the non-democritization of electoral processes. Therefore, I have this next question:

Is equality a prerequisite for democracy to function? If so, why does it seem to be so immensely manifested in theory – as in to which finally predominant effects does it play a prominent cause? And if equality is to be observed and practiced, why does the Communist line of thought fail so miserably? Is it because of the greater number of capitalist nations in the world, or is it because something is terribly wrong with itself?