Some Questions about Culture

• What is wrong with following `western culture'? 
• Do we not have the freedom to choose which culture we follow or not follow, the way we have a freedom of religion? 
• Why can we not choose not to follow any `culture' and live life the way we want to live, without conforming to any existing culture? 
• Why is `not having a culture' looked down upon? 
• What does `has/have no culture' mean?
• Why must we embrace `our culture'?
• How do we decide which culture is `ours'? Why can we not use different criteria for this decision?
  

Unity

``The unity of everything. One idea/concept/thing to explain everything, so that everything makes sense. That's what we want, isn't it?''

This was my blog's caption for about two years. At the time I was convinced that life would be much easier if everything had the same explanation. I almost wanted a single explanation. Now I wonder, why does there have to be a single explanation? Why can there not be a different explanation for everything? Or, why can not be such that some things have explanation one, others have explanation two, still others have explanation three and so on?

Several modern physicists are after a theory of everything. They want to unify all fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak, strong and gravitational) into one force. This does seem to be an instance of the same tendency which makes us want to have `unity'. Personally, I do not think I fall in that category - I neither want, nor do not want unification, which is the reason for using the pronoun `they'. I just want to learn about the forces the way they are and not they way some physicists want them to be. For all we know, there may be several other forces, which we do not know of, besides the four we know. Why should there be only one force? Why four? Why not five hundred and two? Why not ninety million, forty seven thousand, three hundred and seventy four?

Some of us humans are obsessed with our culture/religion/traditions. Some of us think that our `way' is the best way and everyone should adopt it. There are some who try to enforce their `ways' on others. It would seem that this is a manifestation of the same quest for `unity'.

I always believed in the idea of `United Earth'. I look at nations as narrow boundaries dividing humanity. I blame these boundaries for things like wars. I thought all humans should have one common language (maybe I still do), in addition to their ethnic/regional language(s). Is there much difference between this idea and the idea of the Spanish Inquisition? Are they not the same idea, albeit in a different form?

Why do we like to find patterns? Is it not because we want less diversity? So that it is `easier' for us to remember? So that it is take less storage space? It is not easier to store one equation, than an infinitely large table of numbers which satisfy it? But then, do all the numbers satisfy a single equation? Sometimes, yes, sometimes no. But that does not change our obsession with trying to fit equations to sets of numbers. Is this not an example of the same infatuation with unity (or at least reduction of diversity)?

I am quite obsessed with symmetry (which is quite natural for a person who loves physics). Again, am I not trying to reduce diversity? My fixation with mirror symmetry would explain my prejudice against several forms of clothing (including, but not limited to saris, shirts with breast pockets one only one side, trousers with hip pockets on only one side and asymmetric skirts). I do not like wearing a watch because that would mean wearing a watch on one hand and nothing on the other. Fortunately for me, I happen to be reasonably ambidextrous. I wonder what I would have done if I was not.

I guess we humans have an innate dislike for diversity. Perhaps this is a result of us not having infinite memory, both in our brains and our data storage devices. Maybe this is also caused by our inability grasp too many ideas. It seems to be impossible to overcome this intrinsic aversion to diversity.

Some Realizations

• Events and situations in real life are extremely sensitive to initial conditions.
• Most emotions/feelings are a result of being mentally inactive.
• I do not understand why certain things (and not some other things) make us laugh.
• Letting my emotions out is a luxury, which I cannot afford.
• Singing or playing a musical instrument is best way to keep your emotions under control.
• Planning for the distant future is a futile exercise.
• I hate procrastination, but I realize this only when I get into trouble because of procrastination.
• It is easier to play the guitar with my eyes closed than the piano with my eyes closed. (I wonder why).
• When I fancy someone, I do not like admitting it until I am absolutely sure.
• I have made far too many mistakes.
• I learn most lessons the hard way, and when it is too late.
• Life is like a taut string (of a guitar, violin, viola, cello, bass, etc). It naturally vibrates only at certain frequencies. If your frequency matches one of these, you resonate with it and the vibrations have large amplitudes. If your frequency does not match one of the string's natural frequency, you will not resonate and the vibrations will have small amplitudes. If you want to change the natural frequencies, you can either change the string, change the length of the string or change the tension in the string, that is, be a revolutionary person. (I got this idea while thinking about laser cavities).

Raw thoughts

It's the end. You're free. Free from everything. Free from things you wanted to break away from. Free also from the things you held dearest. Free from the basis of your life. You're nothing. In no way can you influence the things/people you have been separated from. You are free from liking/disliking the situation. Freedom from everything makes you nothing.

Death.

You're alive. You like several things in your life. You dislike so many things in your life. The thought of being separated from all this is so scary. Imagine being nothing at all. Being a mere name, spoken by a few. Being buried into mud, with micro organisms feeding on you; or being burned to ashes. Death is like the end. You simply don't exist anymore. You can't interact with people you love(d).

It is natural to lament. You lament that you have limited time with the people you love. Someday they're going to die, and someday you're going to die. You will not be together after that.

Then you first face it. Someone close to you dies. You can't interact with him/her in any known way, as long as you're alive. You aren't even sure of being together after you die. Nothing is certain. You time with your loved one is over. Nothing known can get him/her back. You stop caring. Life seems a joke. Nothing seems real.

You can't imagine him/her being nothing. Being non existent. You ponder about after life.

Somewhere down the line you think that life is like a journey, but you wonder about the destination. You love your fellow "travelers" (you loved ones). But you realize that they were just like the people you meet on an train/airplane ride, albeit this time the ride is through time and not space.

You think about the sets of friends you had in primary school, the ones you had at secondary school, the ones you had at senior secondary school, the ones you had at college, the ones you had after that. You see the analogy. Nothing stays. No association is permanent. You recall your first girlfriend/boyfriend. You still wonder how/why you broke up. You think about all the subsequent such relationships you've had. You realize that someday you'll be free from all this.

You think that death is the the end of everything. After more pondering you feel it is like the end of a vacation, the only difference being you don't know anything what happens when school/college/work restarts. You don't even know where, when and with what you'll end up with. The uncertainty makes you want to live. But you don't care. You miss your loved one(s) who have "crossed the fence". You long for the "other side of the fence" hoping that you're with your loved one again. But, there is no indication to confirm or refute that.

You live on, not knowing anything, except that one day you'll cross the fence.

Do We Really Love?

About twenty three months back I wrote about love. A friend I mentioned found love to be a mere manifestation of the human psyche. He wasn’t ‘in love’ then. I was. Now, he’s ‘in love’. I’m not. Now he believes in love. He thinks ‘falling in love’ is real. I don’t. The table has turned. One’s belief in something changes with situation.

I still believe in the platonic aspect of love – that love is having unconditional affection for someone. Nevertheless, ‘unconditional affection’ seems oxymoronic. It is so difficult to be affectionate without condition. You love someone without a condition, without a purpose? You love someone and don’t want anything?

Let’s take some examples. Your parents love you unconditionally (in most cases). They love you for what you are, even if you aren’t exactly what they want you to be. However, do they love you without wanting to fulfill their desire of seeing you happy, which in turn makes them happy? Would they love you as an unhappy, discontented, displeased person? Is it not that they want you to be happy, rather to genuinely appear happy to them?

The same applies to friends, siblings, etc.

Coming to the girlfriend-boyfriend love, what’s the difference? If you’re committed, you love your girlfriend/boyfriend. You want her/him to be happy. You are ready to do anything (well, almost) to achieve that end. However, would you love to see your girlfriend/boyfriend unhappy, discontented, and displeased?

We want our loved ones to be happy. We are ready to move mountains for that. But do we really want them happy, or do we want them to appear genuinely happy to us? How do we know what actually makes them happy? We assume that what we think will make them happy will actually make them happy. In an effort to achieve this, we try to change them to what we would like them to be, because we think that is what is best for them. But who are we to decide what is best for them? They are living individuals, not programmed robots. Sometimes we are more experienced, but the lesson learnt from the experience does not necessarily apply to our loved ones.

This is what leads to ‘generation gap’. This is what leads to interference in our ‘loved’ ones’ lives.

In other words, we don’t love people. We love what we want them to be. Truly unconditional affection is rare.

Recommencement

After a break of one year, I'm back to blogging. This is my third blog, and unlike the first two, it does not bear the name 'A Soaring Eagle'. I hope this one doesn't share the fate as the earlier blogs. If you read my earlier blogs, you'll know what I'm talking about. If not, then, don't worry. Just treat this as my first blog.

I'll restore some posts from the first and second blogs, with approximately the same date and time of posting.

Love

Love, according to one of my friends is merely a manifestation of the human psyche. It is just a way of defining a relationship. It is just a concept, not something that exists, similar to the concept of infinity in the number system. I’m afraid anyone who harbours such or similar opinions is closing his/her eyes to the best thing in the world – love. Love is real. It definitely exists.

Love, is however misinterpreted by many. People tend to classify love in several types – love between parent and child, love between siblings, love between girlfriend and boyfriend (also sometimes referred to as sexual love), love between close friends, etc. Love is actually the same in all cases. It is deep affection for someone and being unconditional in this affection. That is why the same word “love” is used in all cases.

Our parents “love” us unconditionally. They accept us as we are. They may not appreciate several of our characteristics, but that does not make them refrain from loving us. Even if a child acts in ways his/her parents do not approve of, the parents still love him/her, still care for him/her. The same thing can be said for siblings and friends.

The love between girlfriend and boyfriend is often mistaken as merely lust. This is not so. If there is “love” in the true sense of the word, then both must accept each other the way he/she is and have unconditional affection for him/her. Those who think fidelity is love are highly mistaken. One who breaks up with his/her partner for interacting with members of the opposite sex has never learned to love. Such a person has not even learnt trust – the basic precondition for love. A person who “falls in love” just by looking at someone is again someone who is alien to love. Such a person is just using the word “love” for infatuation.

Love requires trust, affection, fondness, sacrifice and several other things. Mere endowment of earthly things is not love. Love goes much beyond all this. Love involves being happy for the other person, sharing his/her joys and sorrows, caring, etc.

Love is the best thing in the world. It is probably the reason why we as humans haven’t rendered ourselves extinct.

Narrow Mindedness

Apart from the voyeuristic tendencies of human beings (very well described by Bhanuj in his post “A Species of Voyeurs”), an unpleasant thing about human beings is their narrow mindedness. Humans like to keep things the way they are and resist changes and reforms. We get satisfied with the way things are and thus oppose new things. We are so narrow minded that we fail to realize that the change may be for the better.

The narrow mindedness of humans is not something unique to the modern day. During the ancient times, the Romans burnt libraries of books compiled by the Greeks as they refused to accept the knowledge of the Greeks. In the medieval times, the Church was adamant with its dogma of “Christianity”. It refused to accept anything contrary to its ideas. Thus, great men like Galileo Galilei were suppressed along with their contributions to human knowledge. During the early twentieth century, the Nazi burned several books as the contents of the books did not match the beliefs. There are countless such examples in the history of the human race which give evidence of human narrow mindedness.

At home parents generally are narrow-minded and oppose the differences in their children’s childhood, with respect to their own childhoods. How many parents allow their younger ones to interact freely with the members of the opposite sex, especially of the same age group, and not try to spy or interfere? How many parents are ready to talk to their children about topic like sex, drugs, etc, and not classify them as taboo? I’m afraid the number is too less. I would like to add here that there are several exceptions here that I’m very glad about, including my own parents.

The narrow mindedness can be seen even in everyday life. A person who dares to think differently is constantly opposed and ridiculed. He/she is made an object of amusement by others. Thus, such a person’s social life becomes miserable.

The narrow mindedness is the culprit in the slow progress of the human race. Fortunately there are always exceptions to this, which helps us humans to progress. In mythology, Adam and Eve would have lived in paradise had they not plucked the forbidden fruit. However, Eve was open-minded and was ready to sacrifice a bit of happiness for knowledge. She was ready for change.

There are numerous examples of people in the history of the human race, who have tried to bring change and reform in spite of the stiff resistance of the community. It is due to the efforts of such great human beings that we as humans have grown and developed as a species. I hope more of us humans realize the essence of reform and overcome the narrow-minded approach towards life.