Sand Beaches and Sweaters

Recently I went to a beach in Chennai. A lot of people were there enjoying the waves. It was a high tide. Two of my batchmates were there. We guys ate some fish there. There was some folk dance show going on there, with rather funny music.

Interestingly some people were there wearing sweaters. I come from a drier region of India which can get far colder than Chennai. If asked, I would describe the weather at that time to be pleasant. Is it right for me to go and convince those guys that the weather is pleasant and not cold at all. I know I sound like a fool with such a proposal. But then I thought, these guys have grown up in Chennai and they find this January weather rather cold, which to me, who has recently come here from a chilly temperature of 4 deg Celsius, seems pleasant.

but I could be adamant in my demand if I say that these guys are actually not enjoying the weather as well as I am. I may go ahead and suggest that if those guys give up their sweaters they would be able to enjoy that weather as well as I am. If they try to argue that it doesnt suit them I can go ahead and say that most people in the world would find this weather pleasant and not need a sweater at all. and a lot of similar arguments.

Now my question is: if one takes the place one grows in to be the ideas one is exposed to right from childhood. and the sweater to be the result/reaction to such a set of ideas. and given that this guy is perfectly happy with his sweater and his beach, does it make sense that I go ahead and impose my ideas of quitting sweaters to enjoy the weather(in this case 'his weather)
[last few lines i mixed both the analogies)

On the other hand the guy who is wearing a sweater can indeed get worried about me and try to wrap me in a quilt.

So i just finished eating prawns, washed my feet in waves, let some sand slip away from under my feet by waves and went back home.

The Selfish Gene

Me and Manu discussed the other day that in the end, anything that you do boils down(or should boil down to - I had an interesting discussion with nee-san regarding this) to the benefit of your self, or more precisely, to the propagation of your genes. Anyone like to shed any lights on this? (On the previous topic maybe, in view of this this theory :D).

One thing that is clear, though, is that my chances of propagating my genes minimize with me spending more and more time on this blog.

Adios

Of Faith and science

Chachi, I just understood your first quote.Let me recall it again

"how can there be a perversion of faith, if faith, lackingobjective justification, doesn't have any demonstrable standard topervert"

You are questioning Faith on the basis that its not being falsifiable, arent you? Like a Scientific Theory. Ahem.

I see no way this debate can rage on if you dont see what separates a Scientific Theory from a Theoretical contruct based on faith alone

And another thing, You may draw a parallel even here, as I may have pointed outs some 10000 times. A Scientific theory is strictly representational. Its a toy, with certain "internal" parts, and certain "external" parts of it mimic our world in a purely representaational way.

I'll tell you the precise definition of a "Scientific theory". A theory is said to be "Scientific" if it takes a finite subset of these "World Data", (which, you may recall, is what the "External" parts are supposed to mimic, fixes ALL "internal parts" with this set, and now this toy mimics all the world we can see.

Now what if we choose to have a totally different toy model? We can fix ITS parts using a finite subset of "world data" too, isnt it?So what makes us so vehemently defend what is , in fact one of an infinite set of scientific Theories that describes whatever portion of the world we see?

Some may choose to call it "Faith".

A Specific case, the discussion of which might lead to resolution of some conflicts

Ok, for a moment I'll try to be unprejudiced and completely rational, for I agree that just like sunily and chachi look prejudiced to me and satti, the reverse is also probably true. I'll also leave dawkins out of the equation, as I havent read him

Now , I recall seeing a poster of Albert Einstein in Sunily's room which said

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice."

Let us , for a moment forget the present debate, that is preventing satti from going to office, and will very soon will result in chachi being thrown out of USC, and try to analyse this statement. Let us also assume (ASSUME, so please dont flame, chachi and sunily) that Einstein was "God", and what he said is to be mandatorily respected by all of us, the only degree of freedom being in the way we interpret his statement . The reader may recognize a very familiar pattern emerging. This is exactly how religions operate.

Now, given all this, let us analyse the statement. Sunily and Chachi, if I am not mistaken, would interpret this statement in the following manner:

a) Killing other people is stupid
b)A large part of being a soldier involves Killing other people.
c)Even if you are averse to killing other people, you will be forced to , the justification provided to you being that it benefits your nation.
d)Justifying anything by saying it benefits the nation is stupid.

Now let us note that there are considerable plusses in this interpretation. What is a country, after all? Its a contrived set of people, which has no physical basis. People on the other hand, are not contrived, and Killing them has a very tangible aspect to it. So, what would you rather do? Would you destroy a physical entity grounded in reality for the benefits(genuine or contrived) of a concept of dubious origin and basis?

Me and satti, in our efforts to interpret the statement with which we started, would probably not question points a) to c) stated above.
Not even point c), because we would agree that even if I do not want to kill a man just because he lives across an artificial border, there would be fanatics who would probably force me to.

What we would not agree to subscribe to however , I think , is statement d) with its tremendously scary scope. It is noteworthy that points a) through c) are things we can directly experience, as in we can give proper physical evidence justifying these. However point d) is at a level of detachment from any tangible consequence that it allows us the freedom of accepting it or rejecting it. Either way, it has no "visible" effects.

We would say, that okay, somebody forcing you to kill for the love of you nation is wrong , because KILLING IN THE NAME OF ANYTHING IS WRONG. The only part of the expression "Killing in the name of your country" we would find anything wrong with is "Killing". We would not see anything wrong with "in the name of your country". Is loving my nation a sign of my mental weakness ? Just because some fanatic misuses it? That way as Satti has pointed out, our overwhelming desire to know more about the world will probably be our undoing, so does that lead us to question the viability of Science as a practice?

Just because I cannot show you what exactly I mean by "my nation", is it a sign of my irrationality to show love for my nation? The rigid man made rules of logic can never allow us to comprehend love, how can we expect to rationalize love, be it for for nation or for kin ?

Heck, I can even love the air I breathe, draw strength from believing that I am loved back with the same intensity with which I have loved. Is THAT a sign of my mental weakness? Who decides if its right or wrong, or if there is a better alternate? There are no better alternatives in matters of the heart

I think by now you can see what I am trying to indicate about your views on religion and its supposed lack of viability and the various disadvantages we face by allowing religions to flourish. I would be very pleased if that two of you at least try not to make fools of yourselves by posting irrelevent comments, if indeed you are intent on having a serious discussion. If not, tell the rset of us, and we'll all participate in some playful bantering and frolic.

@ Chachi

a) Sunily, you really should finish Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance

b)Chachi. My point is that you ought to scream your lungs out at me when I criticize whatever Edifice you have constructed in your mind. When I criticize Cobain, for you, I am criticizing your cobain. You have every right to use the customary expletives, instead of reading some wanker's book and concluding that Your defence is based on irrational premises (like poor uneducated people who defend their religions with their lives), and in order to transcend to a higher state of spiritual existence, you ought to abandon your god.

There is no higher state of existence. This, is as good or bad as it gets. Take it or leave it. So stop trying to get to it. Scream with impunity

The aim of my life

@sandman

see, I completely understand what you are trying to say, and I had half-written a post on that once.

It's called, "What is the aim of my life?"

There are three levels to it. What is the aim of existence. Of anything. Of this world. Of you. And my answer is, there's no aim. Which is the same as yours. The world just is. There's no good or bad, nothing matters.

The second level is, what is the aim of a life-form? That, it seems, is survival, and multiplication. By hook or crook, the gene tries to survive (I've heard The Selfish Gene is revolutionary too).

The third, is what is the aim of your life, as a conscious being? And my answer is, whatever gives you kicks. Do whatever your heart tells you to do. That's something we all search for in life. You've got a life. Enjoy it in the way you can best.

Now, you have only used the first level of "the aim of life" to drive your point home, and have completely ignored the 2nd and the 3rd level. In the end, nothing matters, so why care? May humanity rot in hell, who gives a crap?

And you're right. It is so. But the point is, we are stuck inside mortal bodies. We have life. And consciousness. Now, using an ethereal viewpoint makes everything immaterial. But why are we using that viewpoint? aren't we mortal? Don't we have to save our asses? And of our children? Doesn't humanity have to progress, so that our genes can live long? If either option doesn't make a difference from the ethereal viewpoint, why not choose the one which is "good" for "us" in the earthly viewpoint, i.e. in the second level.

If we were cows, then we'd have done it in the usual way, eating and mating. But since we are humans, our consciousness has allowed us to figure a lot of things out. Dawkins is one of the persons who's doing things which are good at the second level.

At the third level, you are free to do whatever you want. This contradicts with the second level, since you have to do things which are good for your/the species' survival. For Dawkins, he has figured out that the second and the third level are the same for him. His heart says, do what is good for the people, and that's what he's doing. This may not be true for you. You may be inclined to kill your entire family to see how it feels like. Or become a mad scientist (bwhahaahahaha) and destroy the earth with an uncontrollable fusion bomb.

I have this technique for preserving the sanity (i.e. conforming with the second level) of my actions. I assume that the 1st level is the only truth, hence none of my actions have any real consequences. So now, I'm free from the 2nd level, and can do whatever I want, conforming to the third level. Seems insane? No. I trust my instincts, and believe in my basic goodness (again, 2nd level). So whatever I do, would be in the interest of my species. Now, this allows me freedom from any pressure/responsibilities from the 2nd level, and so I can keep up the good work. I assume that this technique would work for a lot of people (at least for people contributing to/learning from science). Heck, I'd make this into another post :P.

The Great Enemy

To begin with, one does not have to give a crap about Dawkins, nor any of his minions who invoke Occam's Razor at every available opportunity. However, claiming the non-existence of objective reason and morality is nothing but an excuse. Nihilism is not an end, but a question to be answered, to perish trying to solve.

The primary antagonist in J.R.R Tolikien's 'Silmarillion' is Melkor, the fallen Vala who is later named Morgoth, 'the great enemy of the world'. Melkor is evil embodied, when he curses, he does not channel the power of some superior being, it is his will that bends the fate of his enemies. Morgoth's evil arises from his desire to impose his will on all life.

Does labelling everything that constitutes such hegemonic intention lead to even a blurry distinction between good and bad ? Free will, if it exists, is all that you have, and once it is denied, you're as good as if not worse than, dead. Obviously, universal free will is impossible to achieve in this starved planet of six billion, but what have we got to loose ? If you want to believe in god, feel free, but find your own god, not someone else's.

"Sometimes in the mornings I walk all the way up here to welcome the sun who greets me. Nature is bestilled; bees and snakes are not yet stirring about. The earth and I ask each other why we are here at this very hour, for what purpose, for what grand purpose. Very few mortals think these things through in concert with nature. If human beings think at all, there are only a few pitiful ideas in their heads which they have acquired from others but think are original with them; they never discover something by contemplating nature themselves. They are feeble, wishy-washy, fragile." - The New Life, Orhan Pamuk

"For it is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that existence and the world are eternally justified."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

What is to be opposed about religion is not the all-pervading supreme being, ethereal and intangible, who is more of an instrument to implement spiritual thought, but the tyrannical hypocrite who seeks to force his twisted views on and to subvert the will of his 'believers' to satisfy his lust for power.

This is a post from an old, now deleted blog of mine.
====================================

The last drop hung precipitously, reluctant to leave home, a moment's hesitation later, it plunged to the dusty earth - but gravity, unfortunately had rather poor reflexes. His palm moved faster then the keenest eye could discern - every drop was an ocean of warmth, a tranquilizer, a hallucinogen, it was ecstasy, it was amphetamine. Nonchalantly, he threw aside the last of the water skins. He'd long known it was hopeless.

The wasteland was an endless sea of dust and crags rising in defiance as though the very earth conspired against him, the wind lay deathly still, undisturbed but for little eddies that whispered in stark mockery at his solitude, of a fellow journeyman from ages since. His hands knew naught but the harsh razor edges of dust laden rugged rock, of fleeting ghosts of sand. Since the beginning of time they sought the lush grass he had once been promised, and his eyes the paradise that lay beyond. Now they reeled under the sun's assault that pierced deeper than the eyes, threatening to burn his very spirit to oblivion.

Withered trees stood among the desolate rocky outcrop, their roots twisted, clutching in desperation to arid waste that hadn't seen a drop of water in aeons. The desert knew neither day and night nor season. Every moment an eternity that seemed to encompass all in its omnipotence, as the next. Yet the aura of death, of inaction was but a veil, for the wasteland was alive. It was a consciousness in itself, every speck of dust a part it, even the dreary passage of time was under its domain. For it yearned to subdue all to its will.

Yet he walked. Each step revealed a new vista as horrifying as the last. Heavy were his footfalls, raising clouds of dust, echoing among the immutable wilderness.

(Another lame attempt. This time, I started reading Eliot's 'The Waste Land'. Although my feeble intellect couldn't take me too far into the poem I got all excited when I read these :

What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow.
Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man,
You cannot say, or guess, for you know only
A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,
And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,
And the dry stone no sound of water. Only
There is shadow under this red rock,
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.

As is apparent from the shite I've written , not in a couple of dozen millennia could I produce something of such dreadful majesty. )

====================================
Information overload, more stuff on the subject in question, read ze comic. And if you like it, check out more here.

The Dawkins Delusion

With all due respect to Mr .Dawkins, let me remind his esteemed highness, or those present who are liable to take offence at what follows, that criticizing religion by saying that it makes us satisfy ourselves at knowing that we'll never understand everything, is just plain stupid. The problem with Mr Dawkins and others like him is that they presuppose that the World is slowly evolving to a perfect (Read good) state, and this is merely an intermediate (Read bad) state, and since this is true, the world is currently filled with all kinds of irrationalist, who not having benefitted from the gentile existence and purity of spirit and all that crap that Mr.Dawkins was clearly imbued in from his childhood, are susceptible to believe in the existence of things like God, and furthermore they demand that their religious prejudices be respected.

Well Mr.Dawkins (and all his followers)I have news for you. It is not "unfair" to give so much weight to religious prejudices. And you want to know why? Because unfair and fair, good and bad, are just wine bottles we see the world through, pleasantly distorted out of shape to suit our grotesque fanatsies. What is Respect, that thing that Mr.Dawkins so grudges to give to people with religious beliefs?

What is Respect? We are organisms . We have our interests, not all of which might be in the interest of our nearest neighbours. Those interests might be protecting our own irrational facet, which all of us do have, no matter how vehement he/she might be in insisnting that he/she is a completely rational being. But let us not be so specific. Generally, We show "Respect" to others' interests so that they accomodate ours. That is what is Respect. Clearly, Mr Dawkins, you see that Respect is a human invention which is incompatible with another human invention ,"unfair".

The point that eludes all ardent rationalists is that they fail to understand that any system of logic is based and operated by axioms, which are stated by humans like them, albeit after careful consideration, but by humans nevertheless . There are things that escape the radar of logic, that cant be "explained". They fall short because they try to "explain" god, and since god does not occur to them within the confines of the framework that they made, they deem its existence to be dubious. What they fail to understand is that God is a concept. It is a concept, like logic is a concept, like Respect is a concept, like unfair is a concept, They exist in the mind of humans. So if anything, its "illogical" to question their existence, or to question why one concept commands so much respect. Its stupid. its like trying to stab air. Can you stab air Mr. Dawkins?

As concepts, all of them exist, and thats the way the world is. Saying that something is not good, the world has this wrong with it and that right with it, is plain naive. . People believing in god isnt good or bad. People committing mass suicide because they think that there's a UFO hiding behind Halley's comet and its their last chance to escape earth, isnt good or bad. Psychotic killers who kill in the name of God, rape women and mutilate children in the name of God, this isnt good or bad. The World , isnt good or bad. The world just Is.

So my advice to Mr. Dawkins is , shut the **** up.

The God Delusion

I was reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins a few days ago (as well as watching his documentary, "The Root of All Evil?"). I haven't finished the book yet (probably would not for a while, cuz I go bored), but one of the points that he was emphasizing was the unfair respect that religion gets, i.e., when we (rationalists) treat all other ideas with critical justice. why don't we treat religion in the same way? Why the need to respect false beliefs? When someone says "I am Napolean Bonaparte", we treat him with ridicule, but when someone says, "I believe there is a God", we prefer to keep quiet and let him have his beliefs. Why this unfair fear of hurting sentiments? In all probability, he's right - we have been clinging to religion for too long now, and have been giving it a special status, which is entirely undeserved. Though I can understand the "why". The other day when Porny said "Nirvana is the most overrated mediocre band in history", I was infuriated. How dare he talk like that about my band? How dare he talk like that about my religion? I would have his body dismembered and fed to dogs! That Satan-pig!

Kudos to Dawkins for coming out so straightforward and, as he himself says, showing us the elephant in the room. May this world be cleansed of all things irrational. Amen ;)

p.s. - read the description here, and a few reviews too. The major context of the book is Christianity, Judaism and Islam, but a few things may apply to Hinduism as well. Haven't read it completely, but seems to tackle everything :- why this should be of a matter of concern to you, why one should not believe in god and other superstitions, how it is possible to be moral without being religious et cetera. A must-read for the half-religious and the half-atheist.

In the meantime, listen to "Nutshell" by Alice in Chains, which tackles the other big problem : society which destroys the self. More on this later, when I talk about Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead".

______________________________________________________
Here comes the first post on Nonlinear Wisdom in almost two years :) . Someone said we should revive it, so I'm trying. Do comment.

,':-X

Hmm.....
Meesum still hasnt fixed that exasperating li'l problem of there not being a title bar.

So here we are....its amazing that this place's not coated with dust. Oh I forgot...this is cyberspace..... you dont normally see the effects of neglect until you install a hits counter...

Anyway...so another semester is over, and as the inactivity on this blog would indicate, it wasnt a happy one.
I often wonder why we are being punished for committing the crime of clearing JEE.
The crime, deplorable enough in its nature, doesnt deserve punishment as cruel as we are regularly meted out in the name of a holistic education(yeah...and all that insignificant shite that really doesnt and shouldnt make a difference)

Let me see.......If we started making lists of "10 things that I hate about IIT"...we would soon find the list far overflowing the originally stipulated quota of ten.
How do you pick out the worst out of a pile of shit?
Shit is Shit, no matter what the doctors tell you.

Let me see.....Profs appearing out of the blue to inform us (after keeping a laboratory closed for two weeks) that we are scheduled to be finishing all experiments within the next two lab turns??
Or the aforementioned Prof forcing us to waste premium time (a week before the end semester examination ) in order that we can attent his screwball project presentations?

Or having five examinations in five days, when there are eight allotted examination days??
If we could kill without the fear of inevitable admonishment, then we'd have taken out a Prof a day.
But alas, talking of killing is ludicruous....for people who have no rights...
We are marginally better off than those mongrels people kick into gutters. No fucking freedom to do anything..
We live in times that superficially give us all these means and modes of expressing and manifesting our so called freedom. They say Humankind is nearing its Nirvana . they say that we live in an age of increased awareness, of compassion, of brotherhood and all that kind of shite

Somehow, you know, it all rings as hollow as a plastic bottle, when we are listening to a prof telling us that we dont have the required scientific temparament, when that prof is an arsehole who is least bothered about taking his classes, and filling in the so called gaps in our scientific temparament if and where he percieves them.

Or some guy telling us that we are designed to handle pressure, being in IIT, the pressure being of the most curious nature, in as much as he was referring to our end semester schedule change plea.... We were originally scheduled to be having the examinations spread over 8 days, with plenty of time for everything.

The way it turned out, I dont think any of us had any idea how we managed to write the examinations

If we had the slightest temparamental defect or mental infirmity, we would have jumped from the sixth floor of fb at least 20 times during our stay in IIT. We havent done so...They can safely send us to Indo Pak Border...

At least killing is not illegal down there

Feminism vs Hedonism part 2

Since I am that esteemed member whom Meesum quoted, (though I cant help thinking that he doesn't quite believe it himself,, thereby all his efforts at distancing himself from the comment), I find it imperative for me to elaborate on what might earn me a Court martial sentence in today's world.

First of all, women who believe that feminism (and the practice and propagation thereof) has anything to do with their benefit, Let me assure you, from a different point of view that we males have the benefit of having, from which we can indeed see everything that you cant, that Feminism has nothing to do with empowerment of women. It IS verily an excuse by men to conveniently dub females and males to be same in all respects, all the better for us to follow our own hedonistically driven pursuits. Males and Females are BIOLOGICALLY different, and the feminist utopia in which all males are eliminated is thereby a biological impossibility.Of course, what women DO NOT realize more often than not, that they are so mentally oppressed that they cant see the obvious fact that this (and other such obnoxiously improabale ideas) are merely pipe dreams that men show them to take advantage of them. The fact that women support the feminist movement viciously shows that we live in an epoch of time where females are verily in a position of disadvantage, just like the "Black Empowerment" crap shows how far behind is Africa is today. And moreover, it draws them ever deeper into the cesspool of misery.

And therefore, women who jump up and down like over excited rabbits revelling in the dream that they are indeed superior than males often earn my pity and disgust, no offence to our most respect "Feminists" . I can understand males indulging in such things, but a woman has to be VERY weak to do such a thing. Look beyond. I often wonder , arent they realizing, that we live in a world in which their irresponsible "feminism" lenses out what they should see. They are , more than ever before, sexual playthings in a world of manupulation and deceit , And the "empowered " woman has less of a say than ever bofore. At the same time, whenever there are two groups that are equal, then one group will inevitably try to take advantage of the other. Men, who are fully aware of the fact that they are very much in the vantage point today, use this aforementioned argument to exploit women more than ever before.

But of course, no woman will agree with me. Thats the sad part. For them, god still exists, and still rules a feminist heaven. Sadly enough for them.
Amen

When the aforementioned beaver vainshed into a promiscuous back-alley, the assassin was left stranded, pondering the nature of knowledge

As with chachi, there seems to be a title bar absent. Now as for the "non-linear" wisdom, I've hardly seen any wisdom thats linear in nature. Information may be as straight as a candle (!) but wisdom just dont come that way. The guy who's created these has much to say on this subject. I remember this discussion about 3 months back when meesum,porny,dabholkar and I were in the great one's room and someone commented on how its such a pain in the ass to read a textbook chapter by chapter (that this sparked of a really long discussion and eventually led to a fokat mein treat is a matter of the past). To be concise, accumalation of info is quite linear, but its not exactly wisdom/knowledge. Wisdom is inherently non-linear...radial with multiple junctions is probably a good approximation.

But even non-linear stuff how much ever jagged and fractal-like it may be is continuous. And it seems that proceeding purely by logic can only get you to some lower peak. A rather obscure book by Heinz Pagels called the Cosmic Code gives a rather sketchy lil' diagram of something Einstein had commented upon in his latter days. It seems to deal with analysing observations and know facts to arrive at some level of understanding...but the ultimate conclusion is reached from this point by an 'intuitive leap'. Im talking about stuff I dont understand a bit of and have this bad tendency of hooking up rather unrelated stuff together but here goes...Theres also this book by Douglas Hofsdater (now this is one helluva book...its got lotsa Lewis Carrollish stories that makes for fun reading but whats ironic is that the non-humourous parts are just plain one millions tonnes of stone block on the brain). All I managed with my feeble intellect was to get through what seemed like 10% of the book. But the superbly written intro gives a decent idea of what he aims at. He tries to use the Godel theorem to create a model for the working of the mind...and although i know nothing more of the godel theorem than two pages worth of summary, it seems to conform well with the intuitive leap business. Also seemingly connected to these are the zen koan thingies. This book explores such in great detail...as usual, I havent finished, getting only about the halfway mark :(

@chachi : And as for the 4D business...saale poore chuttiyon mein Gamow rakha tha, usme shadow waala funda nahin dekha kya ? Of course we cant perceive a 4D object every night while brushing but his method does seem quite elegant.

To wind up this rant on stuff I hardly know two pence worth about, this quote courtesy Hofsdater : What is a self, and how can a self come out of stuff that is as selfless as a stone or a puddle?

The above mindless garble generated by :

Kreid Mirgerov
Blademeister of the Fenrir Lodge
Oberlieutenant - Quadragon Seven
Imperial Guard of the Vergi Empire

Feminism vs Hedonism

so there i was sitting and sweating in the class of feminist theory
i was pretty apprehensive about the way things may turn out...
well the instructor does have a unique style and makes her talk interesting.
so lets deliberate on the topic she started today---

Abstract:
according to her talk there are two types of identities-
1.biological (male/female)
2.social (man/woman)
biological identities are a constant , ie. you are born with
some discrete identity (male/female)(taking entangled states as an exception).
and the society determines your social identity---her examples being of type:--
"a women with a manly voice"
and that the women can have manly qualities and some such stuff...

its a profound idea and its consequences are more far reaching
than meets the eye,
allow me to build up a conspiracy theory--
its just an attempt by females to show that theres nothing feminine about
behaviour and that the manly qualities nad womanly qualities are not
a disjoint set ... thus they can go on and gain some sympathy from the
patriarchal society by giving them a reason for empathy...

theres another comment by an honorable member of this blog that
feminist theory is a sort of crap invented by the male human beings for
their own hedonistic motives.

Non-Linear Wisdom

Somehow this blog doesn't allow me to have a title, still, here its goes:

When Meesum first made this blog and named it "non-linear wisdom", I had no idea what to expect. Well, and here I am, writing the first meaningful post of this blog, explaining what it means. First of all, what is "linear wisdom"? I think it's very clear that linear wisdom is normal wisdom. The kind of wisdom that most of us have. The power to observe things and deliberate upon ideas. So, what is non-linear wisdom? Someone who can debate upon a thing with himself, view a situation from different viewpoints - he seems to be pretty close to having a non-linear wisdom. But can a three-dimensional being imagine a four-dimensional object? No. At most, he can imagine the shadow that four-dimensional object would cast on a three-dimensional space. So whats the best way to imagine a four-dimensional object? By being a four-dimensional creature! So, to actually view a situation from different viewpoints, the best method is not to imagine ourselves in different positions, but to have people who are actually in different positions comment on the same thing at the same time.

Thats what we are trying to do here at nonlinear wisdom.