Category Archive: Uncategorized

I was watching a video on the Hubble space telescope (indeed very geeky) and there were a few very interesting thoughts that came to my mind. Its not that I was not aware of this line of reasoning but maybe I never developed it to any appreciable extent. The more I think about it, the more astonishing it gets. Let me explain.

The first thing that struck me in the video (90 minutes documentary) was the immense forces at play on a universal scale, the almost incomprehensible extent of the universe and the unfathomable distances and time scales involved. We are all very aware of this aspect of the universe. The next thing that caught my attention was the immense cosmic dance giving rise to supremely exotic phenomenon occurring almost with a mundane regularity in the universe. From the devilish grasp of Black holes to the concept of cataclysmic Supernovae and immense energies of the Quasars to galactic collisions, nature plays the game of destruction and beauty at a level we can hardly comprehend and she plays it with the virtuosity of a Horowitz gently stroking the keys of a grand Piano. But these were not the things that impressed me the most about this video. It was something else.

Einstein once said that the most surprising thing about nature is that it's comprehensible. And if you think about it, its rather disconcerting and very astonishing. You see, nature is not obligated to make sense. The fact that a few equations on a piece of paper can accurately describe phenomenon as weird as gravitational lensing and stellar implosion is nothing less than startling. I do not have much idea about Quantum theory but I have read a bit about Einstein's gravitation and all I can say about it is that its a triumph of human intelligence. I do not want this to be a geeky post so I will go straight to the essence of it all. The only assumption in Einstein's theory is the constance of the speed of light. Its hardly a theory of physics. Its pure mathematics. Its just a geometrical statement. And whats seriously weird is that the final equation was found by a guess since there are infinite other equally correct such equations. Einstein's equation just happens to describe the universe with a scary accuracy.

I find it strange that nature and mathematics are such close bedfellows. Why is it all so simple and so logical ? Why does nature dance to the tunes of purely mathematical laws and relations ? I am not sure if I am communicating this idea well enough. You see, mathematics is a very rigid discipline in which if a+b=c then there is no way a+b=d unless c=d. If, on the other hand, we represent two physical quantities by a and b and then try to find a+b, nature is not obligated to give us c as an answer, but it does. An example would be the conservation of energy. Saying that energy is conserved in a physical system and that 2+2=4 (always) in a mathematical system have a deep connection because we have chosen to describe nature via mathematics. But in the end they are two very distinct entities. The fact that we never see a violation of conservation of energy and that we never find that 2+2=5 somehow signifies a deep inter-dependence of the most basic natural laws and the most fundamental mathematical tenets. And this thinking rests on the sole fact that physical reality and mathematics form two ends of a very interesting spectrum. While physical reality is the ultimate truth which does not depend upon anything else for its sustenance, mathematics is the sole discipline which does not seek to explain anything and which does not depend upon any other science. Everything in between including physics, chemistry, biology either serve to explain the physical reality or emanate from mathematics or both. I find it interesting that the two fields which are just not obligated to be connected end up getting so closely tied together. Which makes me think that if there is such a thing as an ultimate truth, an ultimate reality, the only way it will be found would be in the abstract dance of purely mathematical symbols. And when you think about it, you would wonder if its all too obvious that within the infinite relationships between purely mathematical concepts, there would be one relation that would be the statement of the ultimate truth. Its just that humanity is just not intelligent enough to zero in on it, as yet.

Addendum: Well, thinking a bit more upon the topic, I have realized a rather grim possibility. If we take it that nature and mathematics are closely tied to each other and that all natural laws, howsoever deep, are ultimately expressible mathematically, we will soon reach a dead-end. A brilliant mind, with the name of Kurt Godel, gave a landmark theorem called the Godel incompleteness theorem which proves that a mathematical system cannot be both complete and self-consistent. In other words, a mathematical system that seeks to explain everything must necessarily be inconsistent and vice-versa. I wonder if it has ramifications in our understanding of reality.

I had a very interesting discussion with a close friend recently in which the issue of needless consumption leading to excessive waste generation came up. I agree with the idea completely but then we stumbled upon a facet of the problem that was much more interesting, atleast to me. The question is, how do you define needless ? To put it succinctly, since this is not what I want the subject matter of the post to be, there is no way we can say that what a third person is consuming is excessive when we ourselves indulge in so many things which are not strictly needed for bare survival. Like our laptops, and cars and automobiles etc. If these things are not luxuries to us then a fourth television set should not be a luxury for person X. Expecting others to cut down on consumption when we ourselves can survive on a lot less is hypocrisy. But the bottomline is this, increasing needs is the other face of the coin we call 'development'. Its not that we cannot live within lesser means, its just that we choose not to and its a basic human tendency. We personally choose a level of comfort that we are not ready to give up for 'social good' and 4 televisions happens to be as honest a level of comfort for person X as a motorcycle or an expensive mobile is for us. So its futile to think that we can save the planet (I am not too bothered) by reducing 'excessive consumption'. There are two problems with this expectation:

1. There should be an objective measure of excessive consumption which there is not.

2. In the absence of such an objective measure, some self-righteous people decide that 5 cars is excessive or gas guzzlers are excessive and expect others to cut down on their luxuries when they themselves and not ready to cut down on their own. And this is just not morally right (well, I am using morality loosely).

So either we should come up with an objective measure of excessive consumption or we should take it for granted that 'excessive consumption' is inevitable and goes hand in hand with development. Therefore, if someone wants to save the planet, he should probably stop urging others to reduce their 'luxuries' and focus his efforts on other solutions.

But what if we decide to formulate an objective measure of 'excessive consumption' and this precisely is crux of these ruminations. Is it even possible ? Its not possible because we are trying to apply the cold impartial scissor of objectivity to something as subjective as individual personal comfort. There obviously cannot be a rational equilibrium state to this problem. What is possible is a sort of an arbitrary uniform law forcefully putting down a random limit on consumption. But we are not talking about random arbitrary laws here. We are talking about rationality. So the bigger question is this:

"Are there problems to which there are absolutely no rational solutions and is it in our own advantage to realize it so that we can tackle our problems more efficiently and realistically ?"

According to me, thats how it should be. The above discussion was just a small part of a bigger issue. Although I neither have the intelligence nor the energy to prove a humongous number of things decisively, I am pretty sure that most of those things will never get proven because of their inherent subjective nature and I will gracefully admit defeat right now than go on.

I thought I should better stop writing on these topics but this was in the drafts so might as well publish it...

I have been writing so much in the comments that I thought, might as well write a post out of it. Before proceeding though, we will have to come to some common ground from which we can draw further conclusions. As Nitin pointed out in the rather long discussions in the comment section, the tenuous and rather arbitrary beginning of society seems like a good starting point.

I feel that man is only intelligent enough to realize his many problems but not intelligent enough to formulate decent solutions to it. The moment he realized that he was more intelligent than the animals around him, he started thinking of himself as something special and this is precisely the thought that screwed the situation for centuries to come. He came up with the concept of society because he despised having to live like animals. He came up with religion because he needed to be told that there was a purpose to his existence. He formulated civic laws because he was ready to sacrifice individual independence for relative social harmony. He invented morality so that individuals could be checked beyond the point where public laws were applicable. And all these laws together finally became such a complex network of rules and codes that they became firmly entrenched in our psyche. And look at what all these laws are doing to us now.

If you look at the stark naked basic of the problem you would realize that man's greatest inventions have become his greatest frankensteins. By definition, society would function only when its constituting individuals are made to work for social good often without their desires. How do you do this ? Its very simple. You create a universal ideal for him and then relentlessly make him realize as to how far he is from attaining that ideal and what a waste his life is it till the time he has reaches it. There is ofcourse no ideal just an illusion of one. So now we have religion with its ideals of spiritual moksha and heaven and hell, economy with its ideals of Richard Bransons and Hugh Hefners and A&F models, society with its ideals of 'good citizens' and 'give more than you take' people. And together they do a brilliant job at keeping every individual ever unsatisfied. He is always running towards one of these ideals. And yes, as an aside, the society functions relatively smoothly and we are made to think that we are progressing although no one basically knows what progress means and to what direction we are going really.

Progress is another term that gets to have a free ride in our society. Its a cloak behind which people hide their competence of ignorance. 'Progress' with respect to what ? Is there an absolute measure which says that we are progressing ? Is Iraq progressing after the US invasion. Would you call Las Vegas, a highly progressed society ? Does economic prosperity for most mean progress ? Or spiritual peace ? Do we have less problems now than we had 2000 years ago ? Have we found permanent solution to even a single one of those ? Are these supposedly progressive acts just minor ripples in an otherwise degrading society? I do not understand when people say that 'I know that we are progressing'. Had they said 'I believe that we are progressing', it would have been fine, because in the end thats all there is to it. Belief, faith, unmeasurable and unquantifiable and unverifiable.

I see that I have tried to say too much without bothering to make a coherent statement. So I will try doing it now. Why is it necessary to realize that the concepts of good and bad, of morality and ethics have a lot of arbitrariness to them ? Why is it necessary to realize, and with enough force, that life is basically purposeless and its not something to be frightened of ? Because people basically take things at their face value without thinking enough about them. Things are good and bad only because of the random initial conditions. In a Hitlerian society, maybe we would not see murder as such a bad thing. Once you realize this, you would also realize that you are not really obligated to do anything for anyone else except yourself. Your obligation ends at the point where you comply with the society without becoming a hurdle. You would also realize that there is nothing special with people who choose to live in a way that is considered 'good' by the society. You would realize that the guilt that society tries to build up in you, because you are not leading an 'ideal' life is pointless. Even those who think they are being 'good' are as deceived as you are. In a sense even more deceived because maybe they think there is a purpose to all this when there is none. The only motivating factor for your actions should be your own selfish desires as that is the natural flow of things. As I have said time and again, I do not have problems with any line of thought because its quite a futile effort anyways. What I have problems with is when someone clouds his judgement by social expectations. I have problems with people trying to find meaning in Koran or Gita or Christ or Swami Whatever. I have problems with people wanting to do things because others are doing them and not because they want to do them. I have problems with people not asking themselves enough hard questions.

But in the end, I should also say that nobody should give a damn if I have problems. Who knows, I might be wrong. Who knows, it might be me who needs a complete revamp in his beliefs someday. But I would like to think that I am atleast not afraid of the possibility.

Let me ask you this. What's it going to take for you to completely change your deepest ingrained beliefs and are you subconsciously insecure of the shattering possibility ? So insecure infact that given rational arguments and concrete evidence, you would turn your face away ? Nobody owes an explanation to anyone else but I feel that everyone owes one to himself.

Continuing on the last chunk of ruminations, I still want to try to find out if there is anything that a human does completely selflessly. If we hope to find selflessness, something that I doubt, we have to look towards closer human relationships, maybe even blood relations or very close friendships. For now I will look at social welfare.

The concept of selflessness when applied to unrelated humans runs contrary to everything that evolution stands for. Man like every other animal is an outcome of a bloody battle for survival through the ages. Society has acted as a mellowing influence but the basic human tendencies of fierce competitiveness and a pugilistic attitude once the question of survival arises remain thinly hidden. I am frequently surprised to see the number of social workers because its not something that I expect logically to happen since it appears to be a contradiction in the natural working of things. And I start wondering as to how many of them are driven by guilt. A guilt which hammers in the realization of the gap between haves and have nots and mixes it up with a social expectation of an ideal state where this gap is narrowed. I am not accusing anyone of anything but I just want to ask a few questions. Why humans as a specie should try to narrow this gap ? Is it because we 'have' the capability or atleast the illusion of the capability ? Why can't we take it as the natural working of things where 'survival of the fittest' would finally takes charge of affairs ? I just want people to ask one question to themselves. When you see the picture of a poor child suffering from malnutrition, do you feel a sense of deep, overwhelming sorrow unaccompanied by any other emotions or is that emotion somewhere mixed with the feeling of relief that you never had to go through all this ? If its the latter, then your next reaction probably is the feeling that this is an unfair world where on one hand some people can live such an easy life, of which you are a part, while on the other, some have to undergo such hardships. And this is precisely where I feel that guilt sneaks in unannounced. Guilt is a derogatory word but I do not mean to use it that way because our notions of good and bad seem overwhelmingly arbitrary. What I am pointing out is that if the reason for social welfare is self-guilt, then its hardly selfless in the strict sense of the word. I am not demeaning anything or speaking against anyone because I realize the stupid ego-trip that really is, but I just wanted to make an observation for a strictly academic purpose.

One of the reasons for not posting anything worthwhile in these last few days was an internal thought process that got kickstarted in me about a month back. During this time, I was busy trying to make sense of all the non-sense that suddenly started to glare mockingly in my face as I tried to reassess each and every thing I ever believed in. Reality to me appeared not worthy enough for a thorough analysis given its inherent randomness and futility but I found that only by realizing the magnitude of its worthlessness can it be dealt with the respect (or lack thereof) it deserves. It would be all too immodest for me to say that I have figured things out to any appreciable extent but I would not hesitate from mentioning that its atleast a start in this futile journey (because in absolutely terms, its not worth the effort).

Frankly speaking, it now seems amusing to me as to how many things we as human beings take for granted without ever questioning their rationale. How many times have we ever, with open minds, asked ourselves any of these questions:

What if there is no god and the religion I believe in is nothing but a confused heap of outdated rules ? What if the sole purpose of something as sacred as my religion is just to keep me eternally unsatisfied so that I can be made to work for the "greater good of the society" in a "moral" way. When did I start taking the tenets of morality for granted and why did I never question as to why exactly murder is such a bad thing ? Why is killing in the name of religion more justified than murder for selfish interests ? Is the reason behind considering marriage so damn sacred just an artificial human weakness given birth to by a social structure that itself is arbitrary ? Why is penitence both physical (in the form of dieting, fast) and spiritual considered desirable when the body is a perfect working machinery to begin with and the concept of soul stinks to such high heavens ? Why does working for society or animals or poor people give me such a high moral ground that I at once forget the fact that the only reason that is driving me to do social good (if I am not stupid) is my own inherent selfishness at deriving satisfaction from it ? Which brings me to the point of this post.

Every sane person is selfish.

and this can be proved very easily. The reason you do any particular thing can only be one of the following:

1. You like the job.
2. You are forced to do the job.
3. You are stupid.

If you like the job then it basically means that you are running after the satisfaction that you glean by doing it. The fundamental structure of this satisfaction is the same for a scientist or a social worker or an evangelist or a freaking animal rights activist. If you are forced to do a job then you probably have something else at stake that would give you satisfaction. A software engineer who curses every minute that he spends in his stuffy cubicle is doing it because it affords him a lifestyle he desires. The saffron brigade fights the Muslim warriors on the streets of Gujarat because it gives both of them the spiritual solace of religious uplifting. Only in the case that you are stupid, do you do something completely selflessly and I have a lot of respect for such people because they might be stupid but they are not dishonest. Everyone is selfish. Its the natural law. Every sane deed is selfish. But the problem is that along with being selfish, people are curiously dishonest about it. They try to see reason where there is none. They try to look for purpose where there is zilch. Every one tries to assume a higher moral ground where there is just a vast uniform plane of ego-hurting equality. Somewhere down below, I feel that no one is so stupid so as not to realize that it is their own selfish interests that's driving everything they do but most of us are too dishonest to accept it. And I am not saying its bad as dishonesty is just a child of an arbitrary system of rules we call morality but it would be nice if for once you stopped deceiving yourself and atleast be honest about your dishonesty.

Why suddenly this discussion ? Because I have seen people taking decisions driven by the illusion of 'higher deed'. I have seen people foolishly arguing for their beliefs and trying to put down those with conflicting beliefs when they do not realize that beliefs of all forms are nothing but social conditionings and come to think of it there is no system thats completely devoid of stinking bullshit in the form of unverifiable faith. So here is my advice for those who care to take it:

Admit that you are selfish or admit that you are stupid.

Once you are clear on the point above, things would be much clearer. You would do things because you want to do them and you would love the experience. Or maybe you would do things because you are forced to but the pain would be less. You would never do things because there is a higher moral ground, a higher purpose, a selfless hero-factor to them.

Here is the deal. Don't watch it. That's it. That's all there is to it. If you respect your intelligence even a wee bit, if you cringe at the sight of mediocrity, if your blood is susceptible to boiling from ham-acting, this movie would easily give you a heart attack. On the other hand if, like me, you are a connoisseur of cheese, if in almost a masochistic way, you derive pleasure from the pain that a brain-liquefying piece of cinema inflicts over your personality, this movie is almost the culmination of the insistent human endeavor for reaching the abyss of creativity and meaningfulness.

The premise of the movie is very simple. Martian children, cooped up in their Martian homes watch Earth television programs and they happen to develop a liking for Santa Claus. Their Martian parents are now left with no other option but to kidnap Santa himself and bring him to Mars. While they do manage to take him hostage, Santa, contrary to his benign image, then indulges in rampant ass-kickery reducing the technologically advanced Martians to a bunch of carol-singing, incessantly-laughing, toy-loving sissy boys.

The technical ineptness of the movie is almost numbing. The Martians are imagined as dark skinned creatures but apparently the director did not have enough money to hire a make-up artist skilled enough to uniformly paint a face black when given a clean slate. The result is a bunch of sorry looking Martians who look more like the regular variety of Earthlings who have only partially recovered from a recent bout of Chicken Pox. Their sorryness is only exaggerated by their sorry costumes. Skin hugging green vest with skin hugging green pants and skin hugging green shoes and skin hugging green underwears worn over the skin hugging green pants. As if their costumes were not already hilarious enough, the director, in a rare moment of genius, makes them wear a helmet with a semi-circular antenna which apparently does nothing except become an impediment when changing clothes. They also have a Supermanesque cape and they have something written on their chests in English because obviously, English is the most widely spoken of all Martian languages. The cardboardiness of their spaceship screams at you face and the cheap boxiness of their robots shouts for your critical attention. At one point they have a polar bear and the only way you could be more convinced that it's really an actor (not even a good one) in a costume was if he just came out of his costume and shrieked 'Hey look at me. I am not a polar bear. I am an actor'.

Santa Claus's workshop in North pole has the self descriptive sign board, very imaginatively saying 'Santa Claus's workshop'. Inside this godawful place, we see a bunch of stupid elves churning out stupid toys with Santa trying to save this shipwreck of a movie by uttering nonsensical jokes which try to tickle your jugular vein almost in a pathetic begging kind of way. And you don't laugh because you stopped laughing at mere moving images at the age of 2. Here for the first time in history we meet Mrs. Claus. A run of the mill, blood sucking, authority wielding, staple middle-age housewife who made me remember that sorry figure of Hindi comics who had a brain faster than a computer but regardless got pillaged by the monster of a wife he had by the name of 'Bhaagwan' (Chacha Chaudhary).

Anyways, in summary, looking back, while moving ahead, in retrospect, taking the cushion of hindsight, having matured for the experience, to put it in a few words, jettisoning verbosity for the benefit of the innocent reader: 'This movie might just be the most heinous atrocity committed on the human intellect after Jim Davis'. Here is a link, if you are to watch it. Its the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version, therefore, bearable:

Santa Claus conquers the Martians (Part 1 of 10)

At this moment I have absolutely no idea what this post is going to be about. I have simply no clue as to what is it that I am going to say in the space following. The only reason I have even begun writing this post is because I kind of like the title and at this juncture, its meaning appeals to me in a way few things ever do. So here is an idea. Why not write about the title. Not on the title; just about it. After all, as fight club mentions, we are all god's middle children. The only thing our age has inherited from its illustrious past is loss. Not wars. Not revolutions. Not genius. Just the mediocrity of a meaningless existence. We have inherited the loss of everything grand. On a social scale, we have the blame of inheriting the loss of a more fundamental beauty. On the individual, we are culpable of inheriting a life marred by petty aspirations and pettier indulgences. On the personal, the continuous withering away of the social scaffold which struggles to maintain the illusion of purpose of an otherwise purposeless life. Come to think of it, life is just a collection of chronic realizations of its futility uniformly interspersed with elaborate deceptions we call social discourse. And it is when this social discourse starts creaking beneath your feet that you begin to realize the humungous gravity of it all. The numbing hopelessness. The debilitating defeat. The crushing misery. The cruel sense of isolation. And it gnaws on your sensibilities and rationality while you vainly try to maintain the false facade of composure. It nibbles at your capacity of tolerance till you cannot take it anymore. This loss mocks your strength and brutally laughs at the hollowness that fills your skin. It eats at the glimmer of your eyes, the quintessential symbol of human hopes, the last bastion of resilience, the quiet face of the will to stand. And it makes a rubble of a human being whose life does not have anything to show for its vivacity than its ability to breathe.

In hindsight, it seems like such a stupid post. I will anyways publish it. If nothing else, I at least like the images it evoked. Makes me believe in the saying that things are never so bad that they cannot get any worse. And herein, optimism, if only for all the wrong reason, springs supreme.

So lately I have been employing my rather precious time pondering over life's imponderables. In this relentless quest for the ultimate truths, I have been helped, in no small measures, by the numerous intellectually stimulating discussion that I have had with a number of my friends in the recent past. Having attained enlightenment, (Oh!, did I forget to mention ? I attained it last Friday) I now feel that I have equipped myself with the weapons necessary to take the puzzle of life head on.

So I was ruminating over life last night when I happened to stumble upon a dark realization. This reality check was initiated by the critical insights of a friend of mine and since then, I have duly torn the issue to tatters through acute reasoning and precise logic. The fact of the matter is this:

Sunlight does not contain Vitamin D.

Surprise surprise ! I am sure, like me, you would be evaluating your beliefs right about now. I am sure, like me, this truth has shaken your worlds to the very core and left you all speechless. Everything that you have been taught till now, everything that you believed in till now, each one of them now has a gray hue of uncertainty, isn't it ? I mean, if the almighty Sun deceives with such vulgarity, imagine the fickleness of human relations. Imagine how fragile the illusion of life itself when the fundamental axioms of nature have come under the scrutiny of suspicion.

Anyways, don't worry. Its not as if you do not get Vitamin D from sunlight at all. You see, I always used to think that somehow Sunlight is filled with Vitamin D and it keeps showering us mortals with ample amounts of it during the day. I never saw a reason to believe otherwise. Vitamin D in sunlight is one of those esoteric topics, you never really give much thought to. You just take for granted that Sunlight gives Vitamin D without really bothering your already bothered self with higher questions like "How" and "Why". Its not one of those problems which could cost you your dinner if you failed to fathom it properly. So like the herd-followers that we are, we seldom question the veracity of our beliefs. We keep living our lives, earning our breads, cursing our fates, brooding over our problems, and all this while we somehow never seem bothered by the fact that Sunlight might after all not contain Vitamin D. As it turns out, although Sunlight does not contain Vitamin D, it synthesizes it by reacting with our skins. I would like to say "Potato Potaato, Tomato Tomaato" but that would just be freaking ignorant.

So this notion set my thinking machinery in motion and I was forced to consider some highly relevant questions. What about animals ? How do they get Vitamin D with all the fur they have ? Do they not need it as much as we humans do ? The only way a dog can get Vitamin D is through its nose and I am not even sure that its nose is competent enough for the job. In either case, the size of the nose doesn't make too strong a case for effective manufacturing of Vitamin D. What about small kids who have a much smaller surface area to show to the Sun ? Do obese people get more Vitamin D ? Are the skinny models relatively Vitamin D malnutritioned ? Should Vitamin D be considered legal grounds for public nudity ?

As you can see, enlightenment has its flipside. Once the trivial issues of life are sorted out, what remains is truly mindboggling, the above musings form just a part of which.

I have recently been accused, and in no mild terms, of being too frivolous for most of the time when I seem to have a hidden talent for decent rationality. I have recently been sort of reprimanded for indulging my interests far too much in stupid incoherence when I could as well have given thought to something a bit more important. Although I still feel that this conception is entirely unfounded and that I never intended anyone to believe that I have even a shred of rationality, I have decided to give coherence a shot, a decision that is not in the least based on a few recent events.

So the question posed to me was, "Is morality a subjective notion ?" Before venturing into this I would just like to mention here that I have immense respect for the ideas of the person who asked me this question and if my musings appear contradictory to his, I might as well be at fault. Anyways on to the subject.

The question needs population to be separated into two distinct wholes. The ones who do have principles and try to live by them and the others who make them up as they go, living each moment for its own worth, trying to keep their eyes shut towards the weightier issues. No one group can claim to have a superiority over the other since in the end its the six yards of ground that consumes them all and no amount of thought and principle can change the fact. This distinction is necessary on the other hand because morality being a principle of life matters to one group a whole lot more than the other. And it is this group I specifically want to talk about. I believe that everyone has a sense of whats right and wrong but their thresholds differ so that given a situation, a few would find themselves in much more discomfort than the others. This argument would make it sound as if morality is a subjective notion which to some extent it is but only if you do not consider the impact of society in its implementation.

Sadly so, but man has become so dependent on social support, he has had to build up the framework of society to keep everything in place. In his quest to hide his own insecurities, he has made rules which define acceptable human behaviours. Religion is an example where the system has made rules which guide a person in difficult situations. It acts like a lighthouse for those who do not possess the rationality to differentiate right from wrong in subtle situations. All men, not being created equal, need an authority of some kind to tell them what is acceptable behaviour. And it is here that the objective nature of morality springs supreme. Its just another word for social conformance and that is not a personal idea. To a certain extent, everyone is bound to it or atleast supposed to be bound to it and those who do not adhere to it are seen as asocials in the least.

But the story doesn't seem to get over here. Let's take the case of religion. What about those few who can take their own decisions. It is allowed for them to be atheists. Shouldn't individuals be allowed to have their own set of moral principles ? I feel that morality is a mixture of subjectivity and objectivity for most people. While society puts bounds on the objective nature for the whole of humanity, each individual gives it his own flavour by deciding his own thresholds. For example, morality says you should not steal but lets face it, to some degree we are all thiefs. The only thing that separates us is the threshold we have on our own morals which dictates what we find harmless theft and where we draw the line.

Finally I come to the most important part of this discussion, a line of thought that has been inspired by the person who asked me this question. What about those few who have a radically different notion of morality vis-a-vis the rest of humanity ? Is it allowed ? More importantly, is it acceptable ? Intelligence and rationality, in this world, can act as double edged swords. While one of their edges serves to sharpen one's view of reality and provides oneself with the independence and creativity of thought, at the same time it's other edge cuts through the strands holding that individual to the fabric of society. I think its allowed (except in the most extreme of circumstances) but since by nature man is a social animal, his independence is just another name for sorrows to all those who are attached to him. I cannot say how much I hate this notion and how difficult it is to accept it, especially now, but that I think is the truth. One's notion of morality cannot be radically different from the unimaginative view that everyone else holds and if it is, it just means a kind of social ostracization. But then here is the deal. No one achieved anything by being conformal. There is a reason why every single original thinker's personal life was a mess. Conformity can give you a secure and assured life but as someone said to me the other day, 'might as well die'. Its fine till you define a set of rules and try to abide by them. If you have chosen to define your principles as different from those of the masses, do not try to weigh your actions in the currency of the latter. Its futile and it can only bring pain. What needs to be realized is that your actions are bound to create friction between you and the others since you have chosen to live and think differently. Its better to be prepared for your share of sighs and tears. For these people there should not be any half measures since it would only screw up things completely. Either they should not cross the starting line, or they should go the whole nine yards.

I believe I have spoken beyond my means and I am sorry if any of it comes as being too stupid or too pompous. I am not used to rationalizing and might as well have gone wrong. I think it is much easier for me to argue when I know I am obviously wrong. Then, I atleast do not fear criticizm since I know the futility of criticizing a view criticizing hot chocolates around San Diego. Its tormenting though, when your innermost ideas are up for merciless analysis of outside world.

So now that I have stated quite plainly as to how dissappointed I have become at the hot chocolate quality that is being dished at various places in San Diego, I would go ahead and try to describe as to how fate has conspired against me in a cruel way and has forced me to drink it day after day.

So I go to cafe vita and I am there minding my own business, standing in the line, waiting for my turn. And I am looking at the guy next to me and from the looks of it he looks to me like a guy who, on principle, hates skim milk. He seems like the guy who would gladly give his thumb away for a good cup of fat rich, cocoa abundant hot chocolate. He looks like a guy who has his heart in the right place. If given a chance, he would much rather jump off a cliff than be made to drink a substandard piece of chocolate beverage. So I obviously sympathise with him and I am just hoping that he does not order a hot chocolate since there are few things worse in this world than watching an innocent hope getting mutilated. And I am saying to myself, god please save him from this cruel realization, this harsh truth, this malignant reality. And then he says, "Can I have a hot chocolate please" and I could feel my eyes getting slightly moist.

Anyways, thats not even the point. Its me next and I have resolutely decided that come what may, its not going to be hot chocolate. If its the day of the armageddon and nuclear warfare has wiped out all the beverages in the world and Cafe Vita is the last place thats still serving something drinkable and that something happens to be just hot chocolate, I would gladly slit my throat and embrace the sweet respite of death. So with determination in my eyes and resolution in my clenched fists, I move ahead with my mind set on the goal in the distance. One hot cup of plain coffee. And I reach the counter and there is this lovely girl there and before I could speak anything she goes, "So, the usual ?"... Now I don't think I am particularly easy to convince but I have a slight weakness. I am suseptible to the whims of 50% of the human population if only their wishes are accompanied with an affable smile. Thats exactly the reason why I have a bank account in a bank that gives me .5% interest on savings. Thats precisely the reason why I had a phone connection during the first year in US with a service that did not even provide connectivity in my house. So I am in this huge conundrum here. Its my principles against my temptations. Its the grand war between good and evil, morality and weakness and while I am chewing over this great big issue, looking all the while like a deer in a headlight, she takes my confused silence as a sign of consent and goes about her task of preparing that godawful drink for me. And I can only stare at her in despair for I know that I have been caught in this never ending cycle here. Next time she wouldn't even have to ask me the question "So, the usual ?". She would just have to give that look of acquaintance and I would melt into a malleable whole. She would just have to smile and I would be forced to say yes. Thats the whole problem with this world. People are unaware of how strong their unsaid, unintended signals can be. Or is it just me and my habit of reading between the lines ?

Thats not all. The girl at Cafe Vita doesn't even wait for me to order now. The one at Fairbanks starts preparing hot chocolate even if she spots me at the horizon. And the one at Roma has gone ahead and decided whats best for me. And its not hot chocolate, its some godawful drink called Cafe au Lait and by the holy mother of god, I have never had it but somehow she thinks that I am the kind of person who would drink Cafe au Lait. So everytime I go there, she gives a smile, says "the usual ?" and brings me a Cafe au Lait. Seriously, this 50% of the population is killing me.