addendum to previous post.

i think now i may have been a tad hasty in my thought that humankind has been upending nature's logic (and therefore playing the Big Joke on her) of the selection of her worst in ruling the rest of her creation, by not doing the same in his or her 'civilized societies'.

what was i thinking? i mean i write this...i click on 'publish post'...go to my daily news and boom! reality wakes me up...i read names like Arjun..Laloo..Mulayam..Jaya..and you know, like my memory comes back to me at warp speed...

mera bharat is truly mahaan...only we this particular people have realized nature's purpose is to ultimately self-distruct at some point in time (i mean creation sort of wrote its own ticket when she placed all her bets on humankind like a twelve year old in the Vegas strip)...and what better way to flatter than imitate...

my fellow indians...brothers..sisters...family...friends...bosses...would-be subordinates...could-have-been girlfriends...only wife...it was a pleasure knowing you (or wanting to know, for some of you)...

we create...inspite of ourselves...maybe its written into the genetic code of creation (no pun intended)
but someone tell me how is it that the most wasteful parasitic cross purposed bit of creation...humankind that is, is the one creation decided to make top dog?
to top it wouldn't the same idea be an antithesis to the way we, humankind built and defined 'civilized society'? the idea of the wasteful parasitic cross purposed among us to rule over us...?
creation played a joke on the rest of what she created and humankind played one on her...the emperor is dead! long live the emperor!

i saw this movie...rang de basanti. i liked it. do not ask why because i cannot tell...maybe it was the sum which i thought was greater than the parts...
i've heard and discussed and arged and fought about the begninning and the end, the pre-interval and the post-interval and what is right and what is wrong, and what is correct and what is not...
i do not care because for once i hear in the 'mainstream', the 'masala movie of the 'masses' the echo of how i would say...i will not go quietly into the night...
now i do not say we have never had bollowood movies like this before but they were either not mainstream but pseudo documentarial serious dramatic expressions on community or region specific issues featuring serious dramatic actors and crafted by serious dramatic film makers OR, were unidimensional juvenile masala movies with native rambos and larger than life phoolanesque clones...
the sum of my feelings come from taking an issue that is alive and real and playing characters i can identify with around it, characters who are forceful and not doing what they are doing because they are like sunday school choirboys but because the fates play them sqaurely against this whole big issue they might have known of earlier but had nothing to do with...
and faced with it they do not cower from the 'system' as generations of similar movies taught us to do but say... hell am going to something about it...hell someone (the villain) is going to get away with something like that...
point is not what they did...that is not what i thought the movie was trying to say...point is that such 'villains' exist and exist in droves...and that i'll do something about it...i'll not go quietly into the night...

i'm anachronistic...i knew that. i also live in several shades of emotions. primarily the color red and then some times in blue and yellow. my thoughts when they form are crisp most times than not, like they are embossed in my mind. but when i try putting them down they are almost embarrassingly laborius...the curse of the averagely gifted i suppose. and i'll start to nail down in writing so many times the thoughts that flit across, and then not do that because i cannot find the words! i can almost see my thoughts but i cannot write them because i cannot say them. and so i'll argue on because i can see and smell the purpose of my thought but i cannot convince because i cannot paint them for you...ah the curse of the averagely gifted...

the simplicity conundrum

My resolute faith in 'simplicity' stands on my arrived-at belief that 'simple' is the most stable state. It is stable because its obviously simple, and because its stable it is not likely to change for a very long time and will therefore remain simple...get it? Now if we leave that last bit aside, most sane and logical people will indeed agree that simple is usually good....right?
Which brings me to the real point of this particular note, the one I've been waiting to spring on all ye unsuspecting visitors who have ventured thus far...
WHY THEN CAN MOST PEOPLE NEVER ARRIVE AT A 'SIMPLE' ANSWER TO ISSUES/ CONCERNS/ PROBLEMS/ QUESTIONS IN MOST FORMS OF DISCUSSIONS?...?!
and here's what my two and half bits on this are...

What in the very first place are we trying to bracket as 'simple'?

Let me take the example of a 'stent'...the kind doctors insert in heart attack patients [Disclaimer at this point: Apologies to all medicos and diehard 'ER' fans if I take certain descriptive liberties but i intent remaining true to the philosophy and purpose of the hallowed invention] to keep their arteries open and their blood flowing happily ever after. The idea is simple - prop up the arterial walls against sagging under the weight of all that cholestrol bequeathed by years of great tasting food. Its effective and its simple enough that most lay folks like yours truly can grasp the idea and visualise it too.
So the point is..is that a 'simple' idea? I think so! And I would like to believe that a lot of folks would think the same way...
NOW...this is a great idea...what was this in response to? Blocked arteries...of course! I said that so myself (dolt for asking)..but think about it...what does a 'blocked artery' mean to a medical innovator who's trying to understand (in the days before you had this thing called the stent) how does he save a man who's blood is barricaded from flowing (apart from going back in time and signing up to sit on that man's shoulder as his guardian angel for the rest of his natural born life)?
Look at the things he's staring at - he first needs to understand why the heart has a stroke...once he figures it out he needs to understand what is cholestrol and why does it pick the poor man's arteries to build its home...now once he's past THAT one comes the question of figuring out how to stop it from building (you know prevention and all that)...but what happens to all the guys (including the guy above who started this all) who've already had a stroke because of all that cholestrol thats already in there (thats not going anywhere without a fight!)?? so he now has to figure out how to make a man live and live without a portable life support system attached to him 24/7...

I've put forth just a few questions which are about as high level as the view from hubble telescope...the point being that just answering one of those questions would take several lifetimes of the very best of mankind's intellectual capital, and if they are lucky at that...
is THAT 'simple'? I for one do not think so...and so to cut all this short, getting to the 'simplest' solution is fine sport and all that...but my learning has been that the key really is the problem!

have I defined it? have i scoped it? am i approaching it logically? and from all the perspectives that i can and then borrow some from my betters?
I would rather have the problem 'complex' enough so that when I am done answering it, the solution (simple or otherwise) answers the present question and hopefully a good many of the ones ahead...

so there...

[Standard Disclaimers - All factual deviations are mine alone and no responsibility is to be attributed to the educational institutions that let me pass through their doors. And, all references to the 'male' patient were strictly from a historical narrative perspective and do not purport to take potshots at or subvert any ideas of political correctness (and which female was ever going to be happy to figure as my model for a stroke patient anyways!!)]