Art and its responsibility of cleansing the society

 

Are indivduals in any part of the world, Free

     The world celebrated an anniversary of the end of fight for freedom, which happened in one of the largest country, not valuing, you guessed it, Freedom. Has it got to be celebrated, Yes. Period. Is it alright to just celebrate it and then go ahead with our daily routine, no? So, what are we supposed to? Well, dont ask me. I am out of answer as much as you are. 

     The human race has reached a situation where some portion of the people fight for the majority portion of the freedom of people. This fight for freedom is not what was warranted when, humans developed their brains and formed societies. The problem started brewing once societies started being formed. Along the formation, of societies morals were being framed. Rights and wrongs were being hardwired. Some societies thought they were better than the others...Ah, what was I talking about... What am I talking about now? Are they related?

    The thing is should we remember only major ones. Should we not find out and celebrate smaller struggles by individuals across the globe. The news agencies and the entire societies have started to incorporate a very bad idea that one person talking anything about issues believed right by a majority is wrong. This is the most deemed to be free countries, which again is confused with democracies. Democracy is not freedom. Freedom is not the same as democracy. 

    Freedom is not given by anybody to anybody. It is just there. If it has to be given and it has to be taken, then both sides are flawed. So, if a democratic setup tells that you a free to do that and this and then that and then IFTTT.... it is not freedom. It is bondage. Wherein your are given a certain degrees of freedom. 

    There are democracies with varying number of degrees of freedom. So, the country with the highest degrees of freedom is the ultimate? No. Freedom is and should be a given. Isn't it wrong then, that a free(er) parts of the world are not doing anything to improve the degrees of freedom of countries with a lesser number of freedoms. Yes, it is. But, are you allowed to express the same and are you capable of doing something on this issue. Are you given this freedom. Can a theoretically free individual free the group of people who are not having the same? It is impossible.

    Let us take the next scenario. Let us assume that the entire world of people are really free. Now let us assume a certain group of people want to create a society with lesser degree of freedom. Now, the world can act against it and make sure that they are again free. Good. Now, do these people really want to be free. Many people dont know the meaning of freedom. 

    The rich countries have sowed seeds in the minds of the people that Democracy is freedom. So, instead of fighting for freedom, people are fighting for democracy. So, what is freedom? How do people feel freedom? Is the lack of knowledge of freedom, freedom? Isn't the same be applicable to people who are slaves upto their last cell? Is anarchy the best form of freedom. Does anarchy give the individual that theoretical freedom? But, then again, you are branding individuals to a set of rules and conditions which fist spells out anarchy and then the individual has to figure out freedom.

Are you, the individual, Free?

The same post on the federated web  https://qua.name/wrrfhlepep

Why are people obsessed or made to obsess about culture

Of all the chains around the present humans, no chain is stronger than the chain of culture. Culture has grown to such a level that it "is" the way of life. It is the "benchmark" with which you compare all your actions and thoughts. Benchmarking your actions is ... but benchmarking your thoughts which in turn would result in your actions is the dangerous thing. The narrowing of ones thoughts by culture is stifling. 

     The freedom from the chains of culture can be best expressed by a person who lives his country and settles in another country. The initial freedom experienced by the individual, cannot be expressed. He love it, he relishes it, he compares it. he sees that the culture in that country is so different. He is forced to compare it. If the foreign culture even give a little leeway to the existing tight cultural chains around the individual, the individual feels euphoria. What if there is a place with pure anarchy and the individual lands up in this planet. What would be the result on the individual is an interesting case study, and we have to wait until we accidentally step into such a planet. So until then ......... 

     Why should an individual and the society behave in set ways for any action from any constituent of the society? Why should all the actions and activities be so strictly established. Why does culture change across groups of people in one single society? Why is there no common culture among all the humans? Why do individuals who go from an older culture be "relieved" when he lands in a country with a recent culture or a country in which the culture has not been made "dogmatic"? The feeling when an individual transforms to a culture on the other way round, all that relief will reverse to stifling. We have seen the evolution of right and wrong over the years. We have seen human sacrifice justified and the entire society feeling that is right. We have seen that slavery was also justified and in certain cultures it was found to be right. Right and wrong have also evolved, but there is no right and wrong freely available for an individual. Should the individual not have his own morals, his ethics, his behaviors?

    Cultures are giving birth to robots. But the thing is there are certain individuals who have a feel that this is happening but somehow have a different explanation for following the culture. This group of individuals are more dangerous. Because these people have reasons for why the culture is so, and that reason is never upgraded. But continues to get more "dogmatic". If there are people who want to question, they will be termed impure and alienated. Once this is done the idea and the questions which arose in that individual dies with him. So, we have to wait several generations for another individual to come up with the same sets of questions and may be solutions. 

    The change in culture over the years have been brought about by bright individuals who had the grit and the knowledge of changing the perception of the entire race, while many more tried their best to hold on to the classic culture. However, the present days with un-paralleled information flow we have barriers which have not been seen over the entire human past, that is the number who want status quo has increased and have become vociferous because people can now read and write. This reading and writing ability has been turned on its heads by powerful people and have started to use this ability in controlling people. 

    Culture is the bottom line of all the changes over the history of a particular group. However, the changes, ideas have been weighted with the more weighty ones overruling the lessor weighed ideas, though they may be better. The same strategy is being used now. The more weighted idea is weighed by the reach it has. The more the reach the more the weight. So, do i suggest that all individuals with similar ideals be grouped together. I would say yes here, but we are talking about the most intelligent animal on the planet. 

    The individual is not the same tomorrow. Tomorrow his thought process might change something in his belief dictionary which does not warrant his stay with the present group. This does not stop any other individual with the thought process of this group join this as on date. However, ......... Well, you are spoiling the joy of anarchy. No, I am stressing anarchy in its purest form. You cannot tell that anarchy has to follow rules. If you follow that you will end up with another America. If we follow pure anarchy will we end up as our pre-historic society? Is that good? Is that the best? Will that save this planet from extinction? 

 

Orlando by Virginal Woolf

 Orlando is a mind bending, time bending, beliefs bending saga. There is no stone un-turned which questions traditions, the societal setup. The entire societal setup from the way the poor static people, to poor nomads, to rich static people, to rich nomads the books attempt at gathering the entire gamut of the societal setup is unprecedented in all the books I have read to date. Time flies in seconds and at times it does not move at all. Time is tamed by the author. She moves it at her own will. The poor and the rich are contrasted. None are spared. Orlando gets bored with the lives of the poor as much as the lives of the rich. Yes, there are times that the author finds it difficult to move along and in that situation she move the character to the ancestral home. It is like a launchpad to launch the character to the next chapter/level.

Gender is played with. Gender which plays a main character in our societal setup is toyed with. The chairs, the tables, the animals, wild and domesticated all find their place in the novel. All find their place and time. Man, woman, boy, girl, animals, plants all are living beings. The human societal setup with the clear distinction between the male and female functions are made fun of. The stereotypes are made fun of. The various issues in the stereotypes are brought out beautifully. How the male dominated society has bound the female capabilities are elucidated beautifully by just comparing the dress each one wears.

Sometimes it appears that she wants the answers to many of her queries very fast. Sometimes she answers but does not explain further. Sometimes she explains many of the situations a bit more. This might be intentional. The evolution of the society in over 300 years is also a character in the novel. There are places of rapid ascent and reaching a crescendo. But, she does not loosen the grip on the reader. She gradually loosens her grip as any musician would do after reaching a crescendo.

A recommended read when the reader wants his time to go slow. Not recommended for speed reading.

Education and logic

All this while the world has been telling that education is what is going to save the world from illogical conclusions. Yes, education has been successful on many accounts. It has been instrumental in telling the people about their past follies. It has been instrumental in making the people to read what is being presented to them. Is education the know-how of reading? Is education the imbibing of logical thought? Is education the know-how of writing a language. Is the result of education to read? What is education. In India there are night classes for the under-privileged and the senior people. The stress is on learning the alphabet, framing words and understand the dictionary meaning of the words. So once they can read a newspaper, they are educated. Now, what after the person can read a newspaper? Is education not bothered about how he should interpret it? Or should education not bother about the interpretation. Should the interpretation be forced on to the reader like in some countries? Should the interpretation be allowed to run free in all directions like in some countries. What is really the purpose of education? Is it to create a more radical consumer of goods/services/information?

Majority of our educational tools rely on "laws". We are told that we are not to question them. If this is not accepted by the child then the future of his education is a mess. Because all the future information he will get will be based on these laws. If the basic premise is not accepted then the kid will have a hard time to come to terms with the present world. If he accepts, it is smooth travel. He will come out a brick in the wall. Now, the thing is if given an option of accepting or not accepting, if the child chooses non-acceptance of the present laws of physics, of moral sciences, of mathematics, of logic, he has to make some of his own and he does make them as he progresses over his journey of life. This will be made based on his experiences, his interactions, his feedback, his successes, his failures,....The resultant human might become a brick in the wall, a special brick in the wall, a hammer which breaks and disturbs the wall, a builder who brings more brick into the wall. So the result can be pro-system and anti-system. Now, again, the meaning of system and anti-system might be different for different people based on their education.

So how should the educational system work? Should the system put only the questions and extract answers for all the questions from the student? Where does the student search for the answers? If he searches it within the present system, he will agree or disagree. If he disagrees will the educational system allow it and allow him to continue to the next question or try to play logic with his answers? Once the kid comes out with his answers how will he be able to cross-check his results? How is he going to cross-reference his conclusion. How is he going to validate his conclusion. Normally conclusions related to politics/society happens immediately. Either you like it or dont or you are not concerned/affected by the conclusions. Drawing a conclusion is one thing but pushing it down the throat of others is another. There are plenty of people in the "not concerned" sphere. These people can be very easily converted to the other side with a slight nudge normally through emotion altering strategies. The happiness of making people agree on your ideals is un-parallelled and this is exactly what is happening with f^&*b*&* and other walled social networks. All these networks are feeding on exactly this aspect of human education. Either they re-inforce the previous education or try to negate it emotionally. All this is again happening for identity. So, is the job of education to give identity, The general syllabus for all the students point to the fact that we want all kids to grow up in the same "particular" way, the same identity.

Will education save the world? Will education give the superpower of reading what is offered and analyze it, fact check it, prove it right or wrong. Will education make all people logicians? Will all the people of the world be logicians? Will logic rule the world and beat out all the ready to eat "isms"?Will.....?

All isms trying to chase utopia,

There have been many attempts at defining the utopian societal system. Every model having its own advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are the ones the modellers are concentrating on achieving with the model. They concentrate on this so much that when asked to talk about anything outside this core area, they blabber. They blabber and then come out with a crude mechanism to be inclusive of the new issues which have come up. Now, the thing is whether you are a bourgeoisie or a proletariat, you are still a human being. The societal setup cannot kill a human being. Yes you can show he is wrong in the larger scope of the world. But, he will still be wrong with respect to the societal setup you are trying to achieve. If the bourgeoisie tell a different story and he has a different model then the new model proponents will be seen as the wrong doers. So, this right and wrong is a complicated issue and will be left as is until the words find use again. But, there will not be an answer for what is right or wrong. Even if somebody argues about a situation in the time continuum and talk about right and wrong it is his perspective. Similarly there will be perspectives of all the actors involved in the situation and definitely everybody have their own view of the right and wrong.

All utopian societal systems exist with a sort of control mechanism. Who is going to administer this control mechanism is the point. Whoever takes over this mantle is the ruler in any form of the societal setup. All societal setups require control mechanisms. This is because you have a framework and people have to be ensured to stay in that framework. So, you are telling me there is a societal system which does not require this sort of control and that is anarchy. Well, you still have to maintain anarchy. You have to ensure that anarchy stays and every body adheres to it. What if some group decide in the principle of anarchy to be a democratic setup or a socialist setup or the most controversial and the most misused and the most misunderstood and the most underdeveloped societal system of all times, the communist setup. The communist setup is so bad that every leader has taken the threads of the model which suits the situation and the attitudes of the people and have used it against the people in the guise of using it for the people. This applies to the capitalist's favorite, democracy also.

The perfect utopia is perfect control. Human beings are no more human. They are just biological beings. They dont feel what is right and wrong. They are at peace with the societal setup. They dont question anything in the setup. If ever a single person question the system, then it is not perfect utopia. Utopia can only exist with perfect surrender. It is therefore never possible with human beings. It is in our system to question, to query to ask for better even in the best possible scenario. This expectation of human beings should be alive. This expectation and always on the lookout for better is utopia. Yes, people will try to suppress this trait of humans. But, history is example that human beings normally outgrow the system which is oppressive or free. Even total freedom has to be questioned. Since this gives freedom to kill and to thieve. So the yearn for perfection will be its undoing. It is a continuous loop and should continue so. If this questioning ability stops then a different species other than human beings might think of it is utopian and robotic together.

Mere questioning has never produced results. If results are required then the questioning group should come out with a strategy also which is for the common good. Instead of seeing the profit of a corporation only. They should give out a holistic approach towards the improvement of all the actors involved. In fact they should bargain hard for the people they are fighting for instead of concentrating on whom they are fighting against. The argument should be economically sound first and then enter political and theoretical category. The economical argument can be easily understood by the parties involved and also the third party onlookers whose support is required to win the argument.

Vanilla Socialism is non-sense

             I came across a very simple definition of socialism. For a very long time it was very tiresome to understand this societal concept. It is not that I have become a specialist at it. It is just that I know it as a single line which tries to encompass the whole concept of it. "The entire ownership of the means of production is with the state". If this is the case what do individuals own in a pure socialist setup? Does the means of production also include the people. All the big socialist tryouts in the past have made it very clear that the state owns the people, their livelihood, their actions and their style of living. Yes, I understand that we are now looking at Dictatorship of the state. But, isnt socialism just that. Are all humans on the planet inherently self motivated and all work for the common good. Are all the individuals ready to take in the same salary and live in same sized houses, same rations, same clothes, same everything. By birth every individual is unique and always tries to be his own. Every individual wants his place under the sun in a unique way. It might be in a good or bad way, depending on how the society decides what is good and bad.

                  If everybody works the same amount and produces the same quantity and quality of goods, there is no question of state deciding it, it is already there and done. The world is so complicated. How is the state going to innovate if all its people go out and do the same job for their entire life. How is the state going to reward the extra-ordinary. Innovation, design and related activities are creative. How is the state going to ensure that creativity also is equal? But, all humans are not creative. The creativity among humans varies from near zero to a level where some people cannot sit quite for even a second. What is the motivation for this sort of creativity. Will the state take this ownership and create a creativity department. No, creativity is not a factory. What if some people dont accept this societal setup. Will they be forced to accept it or banished to an other planet. One more important question is what all will the state do. Since it owns all the means of production, that means all the activities have to be managed by the state. What will the constituents of the so called "state"? Will the state be questionable? Will there be "questioning" department? If there is one there definitely should be an answering department. How beautiful. You ask the question and you answer it. It cannot get better than this. Which people are the state. How will they be chosen? How big will the state be? Will they live in the same houses and lanes. If you want true socialism then the there should be vast expanses of houses with eerily the same design what so ever. For dinner the entire society will be eating the same food, irrespective of their position in the state or out of it.

                If such setup does exist, how do you ensure that it stays that way? Now, we are entering into dark waters where nobody wants in. Will you use fore to ensure that the society stays this way or do you depend on the human tendency that he is a "social" being and will accept this intrinsically. A person who works hard will not do so. A person who wants better food, better facility by hook or crook cannot do so. A creative idea when it comes into any person, he should be having that "socialist" yearning for disclosing it, otherwise it will stay locked and die with him. But then we are humans, not ants and bees. We are an evolved species. Creativity has flowered in toughest dictatorial setups for want of recognition and better living conditions. Yes, they do suppress creativity aimed at the common good, but it gives out routes for creativity in lanes which would not have opened in a more free setup. The lack of recognition and the redtape involved in the socialist setup will again inhibit creativity for the common good and support creativity for controlling strategies.

Any society if it tells itself as socialist, should come out with the percentage. Pure socialism is non-sense even for a textbook explanation, because we are talking about humans.

Franz kafka's "The trial" between the indivdual and the society

There was a sudden void in my reading habits. I had gobbled up all the hardy boys, the nancy drews, alistair mcleans, agatha christies, desmond bagleys, eric van lustbaders, Mulk raj anands, sherlock holmes, Dalgaleish, Asterixes, tintins, phantoms, spidermans and what not. There was a certain appetite. I just gobbled up books. Sometimes finishing them the same afternoon and taking them back to the library only to be informed that the books can be exchanged only the next day. So I have to wait out the whole night before I could bring a new book. Buying books was out of the question. So to ensure that the book i want is available the next day, I used to misplace the books to my favorite location, the most dusty part of the library. To this day I don't know the books which were kept there. This place was my insurance. I would walk up the next day to that specific location take the book which I had hid and exchange it.

The community library run by the government was my favorite place in the whole world. To this day I am shocked that the library knew the tastes of their audience so well. Newer books would be a cross between the popular demand, the critics collection and topics spelt out by the government as standard. With a paltry strength, the library was well maintained and the classification was consistent. If you had a doubt the staff were very supportive and they knew your tastes exactly when you are a regular. There were books which were returned that day and not yet stacked. I was allowed inside this chamber to chose whatever has just been returned. I still cherish those memories.

It was now time for my professional education. The books are different, they are to be read in a different manner. They are to be read with emphasis on application. Engineering is a different word for "applied" pure sciences. It was very difficult to carry out my hobby reading. This period put my reading habits on the back burner. Then while commuting to work by my car, I was spending nearly 3-4 hour for commute. This is the time now, I have recognized for bringing my reading habit back. I was never so happy. Over this non-reading period there have been plenty of books on my to-read list. So started without the top most. P G wodehouse. While buying them, my eyes fell on the Franz kafka section. I was always coming across the term "kafkesque". I associated with so many things. All things particularly dark. I thought my reading habits will re-start with one from Kafka. Without knowing anything about the stories they were telling I picked up a random kafka book. The one I picked up was "The trial". What follows below is my thoughts on this book. There may be spoilers. Your are warned.

The feeling of reading the first few pages gave me a feel of deja-vu. I remember an Alistair Mclean book where the first few pages are used to describe a gun with so much detail that it transcends the physical gun to something with its own life and then at the end of the chapter, the protagonist tells that "This gun is aimed at me". The first chapter of The trial gave me the same rush. It was a jolt. It hit me directly. The first page, the first para was as harsh on me as on the protagonist. The novel is a celebration of the complexity of our societal system. It mocks the system and shows how complex it is to understand the system. The division of labor is laborious in our societal system that nobody knows much beyond what he is born to. I remember I ridiculed the life of a mosquito, wherein it dies within a range of a few kilometers. The human life also has become the same. There is division of labor at work and there is a specific role you are to play in the societal setup. This is brought out ever so elegantly with all the characters. Every character thinks itself important in the large order of things. But nobody knows beyond a very specific limit about the broader prospect. The people in the higher echelons also know only what they are supposed to know. The highest in this bureaucratic setup also only knows only what he is supposed to know. This is a just a result of the complexity of keeping the human race in a bound setup. Does the author suggest anarchy then? No he does not suggest anything. He just holds a mirror to the complex societal setup we humans have developed. Nobody has a mind of his own. All the actions/thoughts are suggested by the people around above and below. The individual is dead, always. In fact, when anybody tries to be his own, he is dead. Until he fits in the larger scheme of things everything is fine. When you start looking out of your work, your friends, colleagues, peers you see a different world. When you try to see beyond what you are supposed to then you die on your own or the system will kill you by showing how out of place you are.

There have been reviews of the book which tell that the author visualizes a totalitarian regime. This is far from the truth. The author is talking about our societal setup whatever be the system you use. Be it socialism, communism, democracy and other theories. All work on a whim that few people know what is good for the human largess. And nothing can be far away from truth. Yes, it is dark. Yes, it is chilly, Yes, it talks about how complicate the human mind is, how dark it is and how it always tries to break free. Yes, it talks about how the societal system tries to imprison the human mind putting it into a conundrum. The author wanted all his works burnt. Was he afraid to that he may disturb the societal setup with this. Normally all authors talk about how the bureaucratic societal setup is so bad. Nobody has brought to the fore how every individual is in the same mental situation. How everybody do their part, in ignorance to complicate the setup. The trial is where the author puts the societal setup on trial and the individual loses and the society wins.

But the, would we be better off in an anarchist system. We don't know, yet. It is very difficult to visualize something so big, bigger than figuring out and imagining galaxies, while still living inside the system. Can you get out of the system. Now, what does that even mean...........

Money, money, money

        What is it about money? How much of it is necessary. How much is enough. How much is bad. How much is good. Does it depend on the individual and his place in the society. Does it depend on the money an individual is already having. Is money the means of consumerism. Is money the mother of all evils. Is the burning man which rejects money and brings back the barter system the answer to all the evils of money. Does barter bring about equality among people. Does barter reduce the rich and the super rich. Will people start honoring relations and human emotions if money is taken out of the equation. Will the removal of money bring in Anarchism which is supposed to mimic the "ultimate order" in chaos. Is money the first aspect of blinding of logic of humans resulting from emotions.

        Actually what does money bring to the table of human society. At the last mile of human society, majority of human emotions are expressed w.r.t money. It can be giving voluntarily, taking by force, taking without the knowledge of the present owner. Happiness, boredom, anger, love, time for love, condition for love, maintaining relations all change at the drop of a hat with change in the money holding power of the individual. Are human relations still strong enough to transcend the issues arising out of the effects of money on the same relations. Is money akin to God. If somebody has all the money in the world, would he have seen god. Since God is supposed to be everything. Is money greater than all the dark energy in the universe since money is what is required to research and find out about dark energy. 

         You are telling me that a genius might be born who would start spurting out all the details regarding the dark energy in the universe. But you forgot that he has to be born and he has to be bought up to this level. At least up to the time he can talk. There can be another option wherein god himself surfaces and shows us the dark matter of the universe Is money and Economics the greatest science of all time. Since this is what allows us to carry out science. If the journey is more valuable than the destination then money and its study is the most valuable study of all time. Should we commit more resources to concentrate more on this path than the destination. But there is a catch. If science is the destination of all the money based activities the path we have been discussing about is limited by the state of science. If this path has to extend then we have to extend the state of science. 

         Majority of investment from the biggest investors is towards this only. The extension of this path again re-iterates the importance of money. It is a chicken egg situation and cannot be solved that easily. Normally both have gone hand in hand and continue to do so. The rate at which the path is lengthening is greater in the modern times and so are the complications of money based issues. The human race is submerged in this path and its destination. Well I have asked enough questions. Are they related. In fact what is this post about. Is it about the human race, the human relationships, Is it about science or economics. Is it about behavioral theory which has found its way into economics as well as science. 

         How will humans battle the science and economics and maintain sanity in relationships and feelings. So humans changing their relations and their feelings according to the economic models and advancement of science a given. Does it remain same even in and anarchic setup. Why is there no study regarding anarchy. There have been many writings regarding this topic but never practiced in reality. The burning man which tries to do it is a capital intensive arrangement carried out by capitalists. Will humans start valuing relations/feelings more in an anarchic setup. If every man has a purpose will the it change in a capital setup or remains the same in anarchic setup. Money, the end of older relationships, beginning of newer ones, starting bitter ones, starting sweeter ones all in the name of increasing the amount of money. This is the present model of the human setup. Can this model be changed. Are there better models negating the use of money. Are there better models wherein an individual does not think that increasing what he has is the only way to be happy.

Is the society killing individualism

society is a collective of rules, laws, culture and what not which have been cultivated all along its existence. Yes they do differ in their rules, laws etc. But, they have a common thread of hosting a collection of human beings bonded by rules, laws and practises. So, all individuals who adhere to all these blah blah end up being an "integral" part of that society and he becomes "the" society taking them forward for the next generation.

Now, where does the individual stand here. Can an individual do whatever he wants? Can an individual comment on the rules, laws and culture? Can an individual have his own rules, laws and culture. Whatif an individual cant fit in the societal setup? How will the society treat them? Why doesnt the society be recognised by their individuals. Why doesnt the society tell stories of "every" individual. Why is the societal system so dogmatic in pulling all the individuals into following its rules? Is the societal setup afraid of it being destroyed and the makers afraid of losing their "individuality"?

Does the human race owe its loooooong existence to this hardwired societal setup formed by a few "individuals" who framed all those rules? Will the individual ever get his due? When will one size fits all concepts change? Is a tramp not important in the societal setup? Is a beggar not included in the societal setup. Why has money become the sole requirement to announce individuality. Why cant a musician be one just like that? Why should he learn the rules of the music set by predessors. Music being a continium, is also restricted and put behind the bars of rules, what of the individual? Why should a grownup be one always? Why is this burden on him to follow a set rules for a grownup. Why should the children act like what we like. Why shouldnt the children do what they want. If they want to play in the mud, then let it be so. Why is everybody here through generations affixed to a certain procedural life? Why should the doctor be at his clince only. Cant we have a doctor who creates music in the night and he learns only by living at the morgue? How will the society take him? I am not talking about the "best" doctors and musicians, I am talking about all the individuals wanting to do music or treat human beings in their own way beyond allopathy, homeopathy and other set rules?

This exactly is the problem plaguing every field of education in the society. Every education is given out in so much a planned way that nearly all are equaly good or bad. There is no creativity to create the same creativity. When will every individual feel the whole expanse of the universe not the space in the apartment or city or country or continent or planet or galaxy or .......Why arent individuals fighting this very limiting access to the freeing or losing your mind.? Why cant we just walk on and on without worrying of food, death, life, when will we know what is really around us, except air and light.

When will all the individuals freak out, when will everybody be mad, when will everybody be living beings, when will we know that we have one of the heaviest brains in this planet, when will we honor all individuals along with ourselves ..........................

When will we "Be"........................

Three(The only) pillars of life

Job, society and sex are the summations of the problems in life. Are they problems or they themselves signify life? Can life be reduced to those three words? I believe todays lives of people are the summation of their actions and interactions with those three pillars. Oh, you give a damn to what I think, ha, alright. I still have to proceed with my train of thoughts here. So, do we have the definition of life here? I think so. This definition will define the lives of the 99.99 percent of people. If you give a thought to your calender of events from your waking up today and waking up the next day, you will agree with me. In our childhood we see our parents to the same thing. We continue to do so and the same will be taken up by our offsprings. How many times has your child told that when I grow up I will buy "this" or I will do "that". The priorities regarding the three pillars are already set. As time goes by people who do match their "plans" or "wishes" do continue to lead a mundane life by framing incremental improvements to their existing "stable" setups. People who lose it down the line, become the scum by accepting defeat or try to take huge leaps with bizzare ideas joining the mundane lot or hang somewhere in between based on the success/failure of their ventures.

Let us take the job factor. What is a job? Is the point of job to make money only? Is it to get acceptance in the society? Is it to lead a succesful sexual intent? Why is it that everybody should do a job? Human mind cannot do the same job with the same interest even in the second time. Let it be an iteration of science experiment. Why do we do it? Is it because we know only that Job? Is it because we are not "interested" in the next one? Is it because the other job is hard? Is it because we have an inferiority or superior complex of doing a particular job? Why do we do it? How many people in the world can tell they love their jobs? How many people have the capability of doing other jobs than whatever they are doing now? How many people will be given an opportnity of doing their dream jobs which changes every day, every hour or every minute? Will the world sustain such?

Society, Wow, I have yet to find a more encompassing word leaving "dark energy" which can have a thuderous blow to any dictionary maker. The word society is complicated just because of the number of humans on this planet. When humans just ate what they grew and lived as small herds moving around for favorible habitats this was not much of a concern. Now a days the societal setups collapse for the most idiotic reasons. A wrong, leaky tax collection system can bring down one of the oldest societies, un-believable. How much do we know about societies? Do we have the time to change the thought cycle of the individual components of the society. Is the society really representing the collection of individuals and their thoughts? Is the society forcing the individuals to be so and so? Is it individuals making the society or society making individuals. Which process is correct. Is the society, a lab, for the filthy rich? Is the democrati societal the most nearest to the perfect society?


Does the act of sex in the human society means reproduction only? Is it a human psyche which is not researched in detail? This is one psyche available in all human beings, ofcourse, with varied degrees of importance given to it. But it is acommon trait available in all. Is it an act of releasing unwanted energy. Is it what humans are born to do and the other two pillars only facilitate it. Lot of researches have told that this particular trait is very important. But no study has told that changing this trait is possible or they have not explained the consequences of such an act, society wide.

What a remarkable cycle these three pillars represent. They form a totally self sustained cycle which just gobbles up any changes introduced into this system and make those changes vanish ever so smoothly leaving the researcher in an endless loop.

You knew all this, ......hmmm...., Ok,...So,...Go on with "life"......

Destitute

That, now, is a term which sends shivers down the best politician, economists and all "comfortable" people of the world. Let us not delve into the dictionary meaning of the term. Let us spare a moment and think about what we know about the word, destitute. Yes you have heard it a lot of times. You would have shown somebody and described him as so. Well, are they different form the poor or both the words synonymous?. Otherwise are each other having subset-superset relationship. A destitute is the last level in the hierarchy of "our" society, considering the social and economic factors.

Now, Where did the destitute come from? Why are they like this? It is like the residual of all the reactions taking place in the society. It is the last filtered by-product of our present social structure, which nobody wants or likes to own up. Is he meant to be ignored? Has he transformed himself that way? What is the reason?

For the time being, let us absolve the society from being the reason for destitute. Let us say, destitute are born. They have fallen from the sky. How do we go about uplifting them, like, at least to the status of the poor? How do we remove the label "destitute" and give them the label "poor"? How? Now, you will ask, since the society is absolved of the responsibility of creating them, why should the society involve itself in uplifting them? What is the obligation of the society towards them?

Since, we don't believe in chance, with the present scientific structure, let us see what is the real reason of the formation of this class. Destitute are the result of the anomalies in the societal/political system which has been designed by an elite few for all the others to follow. The critical anomaly is the majority of the people have been programmed to ignore this class over the years. It is as though, the present societal system is ideal and this class is a necessary glitch for the system to be in equilibrium.

The society is more interested in knowing the un-known. The things in front of them take second preference. We somehow have been programmed with an in-capability which is what the creator of the present society wanted. The main thing is the in-capability/gumption to look within ourselves. We know of the evils around us. We know the anomalies. But, we have chosen to ignore it because we are confident that this anomaly cannot disturb the existing system and the glitch has not got the capability to fight back or question.

So, where do we start? We start by identifying them. Identifying them is possible only by the participation of people in the last mile. Try to know what they can do. Try to know how the destitute can contribute and come back into the regular societal system. If they don't know anything, teach them. Incubate them for a certain amount of time and make them understand how the system works, It is a two way learning process, wherein the present system can understand the reasons for these glitches. They should be made to grasp the socio/political/economical system. We have done two things here. We have identified them. We have brought them up to the more known "poor" slab. Now, give them all the benefits which the "poor" slab are supposed to get. There you have now added to the national product. The world is a more happier place.