On love and purity...

Something thats been doing the rounds in my head for a few days now...

Lets assume a few variables first:
L -- love
P -- purity
X -- unknown
S -- sense of selflessness/service.

I have come to believe, over the past n days, that the degree or extent of selflessness we have towards anybody, is a function of the above mentioned variables. Here is how,
For any form of service to be honestly executed, there must be:
1. A threshold minimum level of love in our hearts towards the destined recipient of service.
OR/and
2. A threshold minimum level of purity that we observe in the destined recipient.

It is worth mentioning here, that inherently, the 2 points above are interconnected, in that one is a prerequisite for the presence of the other.

To take a few examples:

1) Hearts melt upon seeing a little baby. And no amount of strife, in the process of its taking care, can ever cause that love to end. Here therefore, the baby's purity and innocence induce a sense of loving care towards it in us. Vice versa too is possible as is obvious.

2) A couple stay together through thick and thin. Individual mistakes are worked out/forgiven, owing to the underlying belief in their mutual purity, which in turn is derived from the sense of love towards each other. Of course, the extent and validity of such a bond may come into question in the case of repeated misdemeanors. Beyond scope, beyond current jurisdiction.


However, experience tells me He never created such simplistic equations in human nature. Thus, comes flying in the unknown parameter, that which has the power to nullify as well as bolster the fruits of the defined variables.

I perceive that unknown to be the coefficient of our personal growth. The closer we are to Him:
1. The more we shall identify each individual as nothing less than His living embodiment. Thus inducing the sense of "purity in all" (even latent) and the sense of everyone being worthy of our love.
2. The more love we shall have, to freely give to all those who may be in need.

For both the above points, the highest example that comes to mind right now is Mother Teresa.

Now that I have (hopefully) clarified my views, we may proceed to the mathematics of it.
I propose the following formula for the extent of selfless service that one can give to another:

S = (L^m) + (P^n) + (X)

To add another layer of subjective complexity to this fascinating mix, the powers are themselves functions of the person in us. As in, it depends on factors such as one's:
1. values
2. upbringing
3. experiences
4. et al

or in short, the powers are functions of THE mysterious "growth" variable.

Hence, the equation becomes:

S = (L^f(X)) + (P^(f(X)) + (X)

Thus, as we move ahead, and trivialize the boundaries between entities such as love, purity and selflessness further and further, its not too hard to see, that as a blackbox,

S = F(X).

Also, an important point here is:
As we all grow, at our own pace, in our own time, it would only be natural for our 'X' values to come closer and higher together. And thus, as we approach higher levels of "goodness", the variable distinctions in L, V, X to evaporate. Thus the last equation above, which right now seems to be a criminal instance of approximation and generalization, shall become THE most accurate expression for all that is good in us.

Further proof perhaps, of the underlying simplicity in all of His infinitely complex workings.

Cheers!
Good Morning!

Lightning

This is a little poem that came to me whilst gazing heavenward during a nice thunderstorm a couple of nights back. In the absence of a camera, and the presence of a belief in the underlying commonalities between different forms of human expression, I figured a poem would be
a nice way to capture the moment.
---

O great spears of Thor!
What is it that you seek to speak?
Flashing your wonder and majesty,
Piercing the realms of the night and beyond.

Is that a song of praise you sing,
When you lighten up the canvas up high?
A new song for every time,
For the One who pets your infinite might.

In you are born a thousand suns.
From you stand defeated the darkest nights.
Amongst all of nature's magical rights,
You find your worthy place and time.

Are you the fueller of the world's hearts?
Is it your embrace that frees the bound enslaved?
All these venerate your immaculate embellishment.
Lead us to your Master, O one untamed!

---

The language/code sequence of sleep!

Just a trivial little incident from today morning...
Upon getting woken up from bed for a scale, I prepared to doze off again, given the relative earliness of the hour et al.
As I was floating in that state conducive for lucid dreaming, I chanced on something scurrying across my... mind, or imagination, mind-stage, or whatever. It was no bigger than a cat, a little furry, and pretty skippy and fast. For now, lets just refer to it as a Mipchunk.

Now I'm not sure what it was, but that little creature was spewing random syllable chunks, either verbally or in written. Then, SOMETHING happened at the precise moment the little Mipchunk ran across my mind. I think I observed myself falling asleep right then. Effectively, it seemed that my conscious self had switched itself off, or something to that effect, at the command given by the little furry coder.

And that was what led me to this little post.

What did the mipchunk say?

The unconscious ambiguity that defines our lives...

Alrite, this little idea, originally introduced to me by my brother, found its second life when I chanced on the following lines in a wonderful book, courtesy Ajit:

"No mathematician has ever seen an integer! When we read "1994", we read a word whose letters are called numerals."

Pause, think, and move ahead.

I shall mostly agree with you if you say that visualizing numbers doesn't really make too much sense in the first place. But even then, one can't help but feel a LITTLE duped, when learning that, that which had defined the basis of one's mathematical prowess, was little more than a derivative from language.
(A debate on whether mathematics is the father of language and all other sciences, or vice versa, is BEYOND the scope of this particular post!)

It would be instructive to consider another example. This time more easy relate-able.
You see a red rose. It is your brain that tells you that the shades of the delectable little creation in front of your eyes, are closest in its RGB mix, to that of Red.
But what is red in the first place?

Is it not the colour that your mom/dad/teacher/anywho called out, when pointing to apples, Manchester United memorabilia, and yes, roses, when you were 3.1 years old, and innocent to such boundaries of chrominance?
So, what is red to him/her?

Instead of embarking on that infinite loop, I'll take an unconditional jump, to:
What you perceive to be red, is ONLY what YOU perceive to be red. As of today, (to the best of my limited knowledge), there is NO way for you to confirm, that "your red" is the same as "your neighbour's red". That is, it is possible that you might be calling Team India's jersey "Blue", in spite of it seeming to be what your neighbour would call "Red".

Next, I shall proceed, as is rather straightforward, to generalizingly extrapolate to cover the remainder of the senses.
Partially ignoring the subjectivities of aesthetics:
1. it is possible that the audio filters present in my ears end up transforming what might be Yanni to you, into your Metallica, for me. And given my programming since my most impressionable childhood, I have grown to appreciate "that Yanni", as you appreciate "your Yanni".
2. it is possible, that I actually feel "your cold", when touched by a "your hot" pan, but I call it "F#$@ that was HOT!", given my programming since my impressionable childhood.
3. I needn't go on now. You can very well see how sight, sound and touch can be extended to smell and taste.

Enough for now!
Without further ado, I shall leave you and your self, to talk it over on whatever it is that you're thinking right now.

Cheers duniya!

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Before hyperlinking to the depths of philosophic intrigue, here is what compelled me to write on this...:
-----
Snopes is a handy reference in today's indiscriminate forwarding day and age. So while we all know that we won't quite find the love of our lives if we send the link to this blog post:
-> to 20+ people, then within 24 hours
-> to 10+ people, then within 24 days
-> to 5+ people, then within 24 weeks
-> to 5- people, then within 24 months
-> to nobody, then never ever ever, and cursed to an existence of eternal remorse, sorrow and loneliness,

It does tickle the curiosity bone/vein/thingus when one reads about perpetual motion machines, exploding cola cocktails et al.

SO, its generally nice to have "Urban Legends Reference Pages" handy, to kill free (and otherwise as well!) time, and verify on the latest scoop delivered unsolicited to your inbox.

Now, without caring to verify the veracity of the contents of the following link, I shall take the liberty to write on anyway.
http://xkcd.com/250/
-----

So, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who shall guard the guards?

It is a question with an infinite appetite for recursion (this is for the uninitiated amongst us).
This fundamental query has formed the basis of umpteen plots of creative human expression (CHE, is my shorthand for all forms of art, human endeavour, et al. So it includes movies, music, theatre, management, programming, literature, poetry, et al et al et AL).

Practical examples of this insanely incorrigible phenomenon exist, in abundance.

1. The first 44 years of our independence. In economic (and perhaps others as well) terms, it certainly was a silent massacre. With the state hell bent on "taking care of the people", through its 'socialist' measures, industry controls, nationalizations left right and centre, business xenophobia et al, it didn't take too long for the machinery to grow bigger than the product.
The years of smug administrative complacency fed the monstrous sloth that is defined by its layers of red tape.
And as all other monsters, this too needs its feed. And thus came the notoriously generic and vague, "corruption". License Raj, Inspector Raj, and other such gifts from our predecessors meant that every level of control could be leveraged for optimal monetization of the people's hopes and aspirations.
The state defined what was good for "special" industries, thus curtailing the potential of the companies that stood any chance of competing at the global level (curiously barring Reliance one might say, but the struggles there too were no less Herculean).
The limitations led to under-utilization of infrastructure, capacity and talent. Indeed, the mama-papa government felt it best to guide each step of its beloved children, right from infancy to impending death.

Was there any way, for the state to have been watched over, by a mysteriously noble, far-sighted, honest and downright pure eye?

I shall not comment on how much has changed post-1991, but one can optimistically say that things finally ARE on the move. RTI, (though often stalled) reforms, increased public activism are some of the factors that instill a faint sense of hope within.

2. Communism in Russia. Enough said.

3. The UN. With the UN fast becoming a mouthpiece for the US, a teeth-less implementor of floating rules and regulations, who shall watch over the proper and effective functionings of the watcher over of world affairs?

And the list can really go on...

Upon some thought and random browsing, Free Markets ({Capitalism ahoy!} {Profit (really) is NOT a dirty word!}) emerge as a possible solution to the problem. Trusting the Invisible Hand seems to be the only alternative. However, leaving the public at the hands of a COMPLETELY free market might lead to dangers of cartels and other such.
This leads us to the somewhat paradoxical option, of a "regulated free market", as is the case in general these days. A free market situation, with the bare minimum levels of answerability to an independent body, to prevent blatant public exploitation.

However, I see I have digressed from the original question to one example that lives the conundrum.

As of now, I have no answers to THE question. Shall update, upon future epiphanies and interactions.

Till then, all aboard the HMS Regulated Capitalism!

PS: In case you're asking yourself if this post was finally economic or philosophic in nature, I'd ask you the difference between the two.
The underlying unity of all CHEs... Sigh, thats enough for another post, another day, another lifetime! :)

PPS: Quick add-in!
Josef Ackermann (chief executive of Deutsche Bank): “I no longer believe in the market’s self-healing power”.
Hmmm... Interesting.
(Link via)