At ACJ, almost every 2 out of of 3 people are Communist of some sort, and the only thing about Communism I disagree with - perhaps the only thing I could disagree with - is the position concerning the distribution of wealth. I'll assume for the rest of this short discussion that all Communists are rooting for an equitable distribution of wealth.
Now, a Communist professor, with the interests of Communism at heart, must always ensure that wealth is distributed equitably. Assuming that he is in the print medium department at the college, and if a student of the broadcast medium were to impress upon him some promise of excellence as a writer, then shouldn't it be against the Communist philosophy to say that the student should've picked print journalism?
The achievement of an equitable distribution of wealth - or any other resource analogous to its capability - would mandate that the student not be asked to enroll with the print medium department. If he or she did switch departments, wouldn't the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?
Showing posts with label Communism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Communism. Show all posts
Saturday, 20 August 2011
A certain hypocrisy concerning the Communist wisdom
At ACJ, almost every 2 out of of 3 people are Communist of some sort, and the only thing about Communism I disagree with - perhaps the only thing I could disagree with - is the position concerning the distribution of wealth. I'll assume for the rest of this short discussion that all Communists are rooting for an equitable distribution of wealth.
Now, a Communist professor, with the interests of Communism at heart, must always ensure that wealth is distributed equitably. Assuming that he is in the print medium department at the college, and if a student of the broadcast medium were to impress upon him some promise of excellence as a writer, then shouldn't it be against the Communist philosophy to say that the student should've picked print journalism?
The achievement of an equitable distribution of wealth - or any other resource analogous to its capability - would mandate that the student not be asked to enroll with the print medium department. If he or she did switch departments, wouldn't the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?
Now, a Communist professor, with the interests of Communism at heart, must always ensure that wealth is distributed equitably. Assuming that he is in the print medium department at the college, and if a student of the broadcast medium were to impress upon him some promise of excellence as a writer, then shouldn't it be against the Communist philosophy to say that the student should've picked print journalism?
The achievement of an equitable distribution of wealth - or any other resource analogous to its capability - would mandate that the student not be asked to enroll with the print medium department. If he or she did switch departments, wouldn't the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?
Saturday, 30 July 2011
Plays of the day
The "Club 27" apocrypha
Do rockstars who die at the age of 27 change the way we look at rock n' roll?
I was sitting with a couple of friends outside on the lawn when one of them, A, itched two sides of her face at the same time. It was curious because she said it happened often, i.e., symmetrical itching, sometimes on her shoulders, sometimes on her hands. I quickly made a note of it, much to the amusement of my friends who thought I was being curious about nothing.
Now, I find that there's nothing concrete to explain symmetrical itching (even though the itch itself as the cause of concern has been widely debated) and most answers on the Web are centered around the "wiring" of the CNS and a possible eczema infliction. This shalt be pursued.
Do rockstars who die at the age of 27 change the way we look at rock n' roll?
*
Necker cubing
Some time ago, during a certain event, it so befell that I had to get up on stage and speak over a mic; I say that because what I said isn't important. As I started to speak, I became aware of two voices: my voice pre-amplification (pre-A) and my voice post-amplification (post-A). I had to be aware of the pre-A so I wouldn't raise my voice unnecessarily, and I had to be aware of the post-A so I could listen to what I was saying.
Over the course of the next few minutes, I could often be caught trying to listen to my pre-A and check for the loudness of my voice using the post-A, which didn't work at all, leading to a constantly varying amplitude of the output - more often than not at increasing volumes. Then again, I let my audience laugh at me: I've found that distracts people enough to let me carry on with my work. Anyway, the experience was like trying to drive a motorcycle precisely over the center of the road at all times.
Consider the following schema.
Here, S stands for the source, A for the amplifier, V for the volume (or quantity) and I for information (or quality).
Are there any hormonal systems or neural networks that function on this principle? Because this reminds me of the McGurk effect in interdisciplinary cognition.
*
Communist journalism
Does constantly asking "How is the common man being wronged?" foster a Communist proclivity?
*
The calculus affair
My textbook of differential equations and their applications was finally delivered by Flipkart (and then to me by D.). When I was looking for the book first, I chanced upon a textbook of algebraic topology, which would've been perfect for the Conway's game of life problems I've been looking at. While browsing through the first few pages on Amazon's preview, I had a shock when I realized I'd lost with my calculus. Of course I bought the book on differentiation immediately!
I was never so good at solving problems I was asked to solve inside the classrooms, but when it came to differential calculus, I could solve the toughest problem in a jiffy. What a dejection it must have been when I took more than 10 minutes to figure out the differential of ex was ex. When in Dubai doing engineering, I wanted to study journalism so much. Now, at ACJ, my fingers itch everyday for a challenge in calculus.
*
Symmetrical itching
I was sitting with a couple of friends outside on the lawn when one of them, A, itched two sides of her face at the same time. It was curious because she said it happened often, i.e., symmetrical itching, sometimes on her shoulders, sometimes on her hands. I quickly made a note of it, much to the amusement of my friends who thought I was being curious about nothing.
Now, I find that there's nothing concrete to explain symmetrical itching (even though the itch itself as the cause of concern has been widely debated) and most answers on the Web are centered around the "wiring" of the CNS and a possible eczema infliction. This shalt be pursued.
Plays of the day
The "Club 27" apocrypha
Do rockstars who die at the age of 27 change the way we look at rock n' roll?
I was sitting with a couple of friends outside on the lawn when one of them, A, itched two sides of her face at the same time. It was curious because she said it happened often, i.e., symmetrical itching, sometimes on her shoulders, sometimes on her hands. I quickly made a note of it, much to the amusement of my friends who thought I was being curious about nothing.
Now, I find that there's nothing concrete to explain symmetrical itching (even though the itch itself as the cause of concern has been widely debated) and most answers on the Web are centered around the "wiring" of the CNS and a possible eczema infliction. This shalt be pursued.
Do rockstars who die at the age of 27 change the way we look at rock n' roll?
*
Necker cubing
Some time ago, during a certain event, it so befell that I had to get up on stage and speak over a mic; I say that because what I said isn't important. As I started to speak, I became aware of two voices: my voice pre-amplification (pre-A) and my voice post-amplification (post-A). I had to be aware of the pre-A so I wouldn't raise my voice unnecessarily, and I had to be aware of the post-A so I could listen to what I was saying.
Over the course of the next few minutes, I could often be caught trying to listen to my pre-A and check for the loudness of my voice using the post-A, which didn't work at all, leading to a constantly varying amplitude of the output - more often than not at increasing volumes. Then again, I let my audience laugh at me: I've found that distracts people enough to let me carry on with my work. Anyway, the experience was like trying to drive a motorcycle precisely over the center of the road at all times.
Consider the following schema.
Here, S stands for the source, A for the amplifier, V for the volume (or quantity) and I for information (or quality).
Are there any hormonal systems or neural networks that function on this principle? Because this reminds me of the McGurk effect in interdisciplinary cognition.
*
Communist journalism
Does constantly asking "How is the common man being wronged?" foster a Communist proclivity?
*
The calculus affair
My textbook of differential equations and their applications was finally delivered by Flipkart (and then to me by D.). When I was looking for the book first, I chanced upon a textbook of algebraic topology, which would've been perfect for the Conway's game of life problems I've been looking at. While browsing through the first few pages on Amazon's preview, I had a shock when I realized I'd lost with my calculus. Of course I bought the book on differentiation immediately!
I was never so good at solving problems I was asked to solve inside the classrooms, but when it came to differential calculus, I could solve the toughest problem in a jiffy. What a dejection it must have been when I took more than 10 minutes to figure out the differential of ex was ex. When in Dubai doing engineering, I wanted to study journalism so much. Now, at ACJ, my fingers itch everyday for a challenge in calculus.
*
Symmetrical itching
I was sitting with a couple of friends outside on the lawn when one of them, A, itched two sides of her face at the same time. It was curious because she said it happened often, i.e., symmetrical itching, sometimes on her shoulders, sometimes on her hands. I quickly made a note of it, much to the amusement of my friends who thought I was being curious about nothing.
Now, I find that there's nothing concrete to explain symmetrical itching (even though the itch itself as the cause of concern has been widely debated) and most answers on the Web are centered around the "wiring" of the CNS and a possible eczema infliction. This shalt be pursued.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Reflections on mad intellectualism
The following are half-formed reflections on a lecture on the history of the Indian media delivered by V. Krishna Ananth at the Asian College of Journalism on the 24th day of July, 2011.
--
Capitalist endeavourism
Capitalism is each man to himself according to the opportunities available to him, his access to them and the quantity of his investment. While constantly derided as the single biggest opposition to the progress of the marginalized, and the politically and economically deprived, only the endeavourism encouraged by capitalism is capable of batch and mass production – not just of goods but also of ideas, of opportunities and resources. Without such goods, services and commodities, aspirations become meaningless and, for another, a decline in the consumptive power of the people causes a decline in the strength of the economic system ruling the nation.
About a certain “stratum”, it becomes meaningless to discourage capitalist endeavourism and instead prescribe retardation in the accumulation of personal wealth just so the weakest link in the social system is well-fed.
Beyond that same “stratum” lies the prima facie failure of the government to make opportunities equally available and equally accessible to the public. The only instance in which capitalist endeavourism becomes detrimental to any nationalist cause is when the availability of an opportunity to produce a service or commodity is tied in with an (unethical) alteration of persisting social and/or economic contracts, i.e., abuse.
At that juncture, it becomes the sole responsibility of the capitalist endeavourist (henceforth abbreviated as C.E.) to abide by the laws set forth by the government and not transgress into illegal territory. At the same time, when the government has not achieved the complete delocalization of opportunities and yet still attempts to persecute those CEs that have not abided by the law (whilst in pursuit of their individual business goals), then it is unfair of the government to expect any growth if it refuses to share the moral responsibility for such a failure.
Sola fide
In any scenario, would it be fair to say that the law is “stupid”? For example, is it fair to permit clinical depression as a defence during the process of judicial review against an accusation of culpable homicide (amounting to murder)? The law exists to prevent accidents. Period. Beyond that, to contend that the law in question must not ever allow for the admission of an unreasonable argument is unreasonable in itself: such a contention only addresses individual issues of disagreement.
Let’s cast aside “God” for a moment and address a pervasive insistence on righteousness. When ruled by a democratically elected state, apart from those duties laid down constitutionally, how does a judiciary address the subject of duteousness? Is it condemnable that a citizen of the state chooses to flout solely-ethically mandated rules simply because the law of the land dictates no punishments against them? If yes: why?
Just as the law allows for interpretations in cases wherein the statement of the law does not address any mitigating circumstances, the law disallows interpretations that result in an extra-constitutional allotment of powers. Where then does extra-constitutional duteousness arise from? Yes, the individual does constitute the state, and yes, it would seem that any requirements of the state must only and will always be met by the individual, but do there exist needs for the state beyond the directives laid down constitutionally? What does it mean to be “righteous as a matter of duty” in such an environment, controlled and non-anarchic as it is?
Disestablishment and its goals
There isn’t much to be said on this topic beyond a question: what is the goal of disestablishmentarianism? Perhaps a few more lectures focusing on the necessity of neutrality in journalism – provoked as they were by cynicism more than driven as they should have been by cynosure – will lay out for me the importance of being a cynic. However, at no point of time does disestablishment constitute an agreeable proposition under any circumstances.
--
Note: these points of view are mine alone.
--
Capitalist endeavourism
Capitalism is each man to himself according to the opportunities available to him, his access to them and the quantity of his investment. While constantly derided as the single biggest opposition to the progress of the marginalized, and the politically and economically deprived, only the endeavourism encouraged by capitalism is capable of batch and mass production – not just of goods but also of ideas, of opportunities and resources. Without such goods, services and commodities, aspirations become meaningless and, for another, a decline in the consumptive power of the people causes a decline in the strength of the economic system ruling the nation.
About a certain “stratum”, it becomes meaningless to discourage capitalist endeavourism and instead prescribe retardation in the accumulation of personal wealth just so the weakest link in the social system is well-fed.
Beyond that same “stratum” lies the prima facie failure of the government to make opportunities equally available and equally accessible to the public. The only instance in which capitalist endeavourism becomes detrimental to any nationalist cause is when the availability of an opportunity to produce a service or commodity is tied in with an (unethical) alteration of persisting social and/or economic contracts, i.e., abuse.
At that juncture, it becomes the sole responsibility of the capitalist endeavourist (henceforth abbreviated as C.E.) to abide by the laws set forth by the government and not transgress into illegal territory. At the same time, when the government has not achieved the complete delocalization of opportunities and yet still attempts to persecute those CEs that have not abided by the law (whilst in pursuit of their individual business goals), then it is unfair of the government to expect any growth if it refuses to share the moral responsibility for such a failure.
Sola fide
In any scenario, would it be fair to say that the law is “stupid”? For example, is it fair to permit clinical depression as a defence during the process of judicial review against an accusation of culpable homicide (amounting to murder)? The law exists to prevent accidents. Period. Beyond that, to contend that the law in question must not ever allow for the admission of an unreasonable argument is unreasonable in itself: such a contention only addresses individual issues of disagreement.
"Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:20
Let’s cast aside “God” for a moment and address a pervasive insistence on righteousness. When ruled by a democratically elected state, apart from those duties laid down constitutionally, how does a judiciary address the subject of duteousness? Is it condemnable that a citizen of the state chooses to flout solely-ethically mandated rules simply because the law of the land dictates no punishments against them? If yes: why?
Just as the law allows for interpretations in cases wherein the statement of the law does not address any mitigating circumstances, the law disallows interpretations that result in an extra-constitutional allotment of powers. Where then does extra-constitutional duteousness arise from? Yes, the individual does constitute the state, and yes, it would seem that any requirements of the state must only and will always be met by the individual, but do there exist needs for the state beyond the directives laid down constitutionally? What does it mean to be “righteous as a matter of duty” in such an environment, controlled and non-anarchic as it is?
Disestablishment and its goals
There isn’t much to be said on this topic beyond a question: what is the goal of disestablishmentarianism? Perhaps a few more lectures focusing on the necessity of neutrality in journalism – provoked as they were by cynicism more than driven as they should have been by cynosure – will lay out for me the importance of being a cynic. However, at no point of time does disestablishment constitute an agreeable proposition under any circumstances.
--
Note: these points of view are mine alone.
Reflections on mad intellectualism
The following are half-formed reflections on a lecture on the history of the Indian media delivered by V. Krishna Ananth at the Asian College of Journalism on the 24th day of July, 2011.
--
Capitalist endeavourism
Capitalism is each man to himself according to the opportunities available to him, his access to them and the quantity of his investment. While constantly derided as the single biggest opposition to the progress of the marginalized, and the politically and economically deprived, only the endeavourism encouraged by capitalism is capable of batch and mass production – not just of goods but also of ideas, of opportunities and resources. Without such goods, services and commodities, aspirations become meaningless and, for another, a decline in the consumptive power of the people causes a decline in the strength of the economic system ruling the nation.
About a certain “stratum”, it becomes meaningless to discourage capitalist endeavourism and instead prescribe retardation in the accumulation of personal wealth just so the weakest link in the social system is well-fed.
Beyond that same “stratum” lies the prima facie failure of the government to make opportunities equally available and equally accessible to the public. The only instance in which capitalist endeavourism becomes detrimental to any nationalist cause is when the availability of an opportunity to produce a service or commodity is tied in with an (unethical) alteration of persisting social and/or economic contracts, i.e., abuse.
At that juncture, it becomes the sole responsibility of the capitalist endeavourist (henceforth abbreviated as C.E.) to abide by the laws set forth by the government and not transgress into illegal territory. At the same time, when the government has not achieved the complete delocalization of opportunities and yet still attempts to persecute those CEs that have not abided by the law (whilst in pursuit of their individual business goals), then it is unfair of the government to expect any growth if it refuses to share the moral responsibility for such a failure.
Sola fide
In any scenario, would it be fair to say that the law is “stupid”? For example, is it fair to permit clinical depression as a defence during the process of judicial review against an accusation of culpable homicide (amounting to murder)? The law exists to prevent accidents. Period. Beyond that, to contend that the law in question must not ever allow for the admission of an unreasonable argument is unreasonable in itself: such a contention only addresses individual issues of disagreement.
Let’s cast aside “God” for a moment and address a pervasive insistence on righteousness. When ruled by a democratically elected state, apart from those duties laid down constitutionally, how does a judiciary address the subject of duteousness? Is it condemnable that a citizen of the state chooses to flout solely-ethically mandated rules simply because the law of the land dictates no punishments against them? If yes: why?
Just as the law allows for interpretations in cases wherein the statement of the law does not address any mitigating circumstances, the law disallows interpretations that result in an extra-constitutional allotment of powers. Where then does extra-constitutional duteousness arise from? Yes, the individual does constitute the state, and yes, it would seem that any requirements of the state must only and will always be met by the individual, but do there exist needs for the state beyond the directives laid down constitutionally? What does it mean to be “righteous as a matter of duty” in such an environment, controlled and non-anarchic as it is?
Disestablishment and its goals
There isn’t much to be said on this topic beyond a question: what is the goal of disestablishmentarianism? Perhaps a few more lectures focusing on the necessity of neutrality in journalism – provoked as they were by cynicism more than driven as they should have been by cynosure – will lay out for me the importance of being a cynic. However, at no point of time does disestablishment constitute an agreeable proposition under any circumstances.
--
Note: these points of view are mine alone.
--
Capitalist endeavourism
Capitalism is each man to himself according to the opportunities available to him, his access to them and the quantity of his investment. While constantly derided as the single biggest opposition to the progress of the marginalized, and the politically and economically deprived, only the endeavourism encouraged by capitalism is capable of batch and mass production – not just of goods but also of ideas, of opportunities and resources. Without such goods, services and commodities, aspirations become meaningless and, for another, a decline in the consumptive power of the people causes a decline in the strength of the economic system ruling the nation.
About a certain “stratum”, it becomes meaningless to discourage capitalist endeavourism and instead prescribe retardation in the accumulation of personal wealth just so the weakest link in the social system is well-fed.
Beyond that same “stratum” lies the prima facie failure of the government to make opportunities equally available and equally accessible to the public. The only instance in which capitalist endeavourism becomes detrimental to any nationalist cause is when the availability of an opportunity to produce a service or commodity is tied in with an (unethical) alteration of persisting social and/or economic contracts, i.e., abuse.
At that juncture, it becomes the sole responsibility of the capitalist endeavourist (henceforth abbreviated as C.E.) to abide by the laws set forth by the government and not transgress into illegal territory. At the same time, when the government has not achieved the complete delocalization of opportunities and yet still attempts to persecute those CEs that have not abided by the law (whilst in pursuit of their individual business goals), then it is unfair of the government to expect any growth if it refuses to share the moral responsibility for such a failure.
Sola fide
In any scenario, would it be fair to say that the law is “stupid”? For example, is it fair to permit clinical depression as a defence during the process of judicial review against an accusation of culpable homicide (amounting to murder)? The law exists to prevent accidents. Period. Beyond that, to contend that the law in question must not ever allow for the admission of an unreasonable argument is unreasonable in itself: such a contention only addresses individual issues of disagreement.
"Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:20
Let’s cast aside “God” for a moment and address a pervasive insistence on righteousness. When ruled by a democratically elected state, apart from those duties laid down constitutionally, how does a judiciary address the subject of duteousness? Is it condemnable that a citizen of the state chooses to flout solely-ethically mandated rules simply because the law of the land dictates no punishments against them? If yes: why?
Just as the law allows for interpretations in cases wherein the statement of the law does not address any mitigating circumstances, the law disallows interpretations that result in an extra-constitutional allotment of powers. Where then does extra-constitutional duteousness arise from? Yes, the individual does constitute the state, and yes, it would seem that any requirements of the state must only and will always be met by the individual, but do there exist needs for the state beyond the directives laid down constitutionally? What does it mean to be “righteous as a matter of duty” in such an environment, controlled and non-anarchic as it is?
Disestablishment and its goals
There isn’t much to be said on this topic beyond a question: what is the goal of disestablishmentarianism? Perhaps a few more lectures focusing on the necessity of neutrality in journalism – provoked as they were by cynicism more than driven as they should have been by cynosure – will lay out for me the importance of being a cynic. However, at no point of time does disestablishment constitute an agreeable proposition under any circumstances.
--
Note: these points of view are mine alone.
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
Water, Sacrosanct
Deep down in the understanding
of the instance of resistance
there is a sleeping fire not waiting
to be awakened but eager to consume
in the process marking a fine line
between the wise and the knowing
Cautious would be those waiting
to throw a stick into it
to empty an ampoule of ghee into it
for its tongues of heat are infinite and eternal
never having once known the fatigue of toil
or distance, and in that truth, it became a power
Of the labouring masses because of its strangeness
Between each of the self-indulgent embers
and the next is an acute space of demand
and vice that act together like willing prostitutes
but never compliant to achieve a common goal
individually, and through pores that open and close here
is an osmotic pump that mobilizes the arrogance
Of those doused in blood into a different hell
that is only silenced by humiliation
Their every breath rises and falls with some terrible purpose
that they blanket themselves with in order
to seek comfort because freedom is a strange thing to them
In fact, it is the eyelessness of their masters
It is the very thing they have chosen to destroy
For the sake of their children not because
it causes physical harm – even though it does
for in knowing that blood is thicker than water
they know what causes pride and what kills it
dissolves it into an ocean of wisdom that is never
never permitted to come together in a war for food
If time healed all, then revolutions would become moot
and the Fire could be ignored till the day it went out
with an ostentatious “pop” only to remind its wardens of
the opalescence clouding their judgment, only to remind
its keepers that the time has also come for the shells to crumble to dust
money cannot ever buy happiness nor can be it traded
For another life, but in the absence of marked and ratified paper
What buys bread and what buries the dead
what is the memory of effort and what was left unsaid
It's important to feel the pain brought on
by one’s wounds not because it's a mistake to learn from
but because it's a reminder of the lessons still remaining
to be taught only because there are mouths still waiting to be fed
Desires must be procured, wants must be attained
but the needs must always be earned, and that's where
we all begin before an inner corruption seeps through
the oil that feeds the Fire only to leave us lashing out
against the Universe of humanity that's agreed to be our refuge
History's taught us less than what it could've by not teaching us anything at all
of the instance of resistance
there is a sleeping fire not waiting
to be awakened but eager to consume
in the process marking a fine line
between the wise and the knowing
Cautious would be those waiting
to throw a stick into it
to empty an ampoule of ghee into it
for its tongues of heat are infinite and eternal
never having once known the fatigue of toil
or distance, and in that truth, it became a power
Of the labouring masses because of its strangeness
Between each of the self-indulgent embers
and the next is an acute space of demand
and vice that act together like willing prostitutes
but never compliant to achieve a common goal
individually, and through pores that open and close here
is an osmotic pump that mobilizes the arrogance
Of those doused in blood into a different hell
that is only silenced by humiliation
Their every breath rises and falls with some terrible purpose
that they blanket themselves with in order
to seek comfort because freedom is a strange thing to them
In fact, it is the eyelessness of their masters
It is the very thing they have chosen to destroy
For the sake of their children not because
it causes physical harm – even though it does
for in knowing that blood is thicker than water
they know what causes pride and what kills it
dissolves it into an ocean of wisdom that is never
never permitted to come together in a war for food
If time healed all, then revolutions would become moot
and the Fire could be ignored till the day it went out
with an ostentatious “pop” only to remind its wardens of
the opalescence clouding their judgment, only to remind
its keepers that the time has also come for the shells to crumble to dust
money cannot ever buy happiness nor can be it traded
For another life, but in the absence of marked and ratified paper
What buys bread and what buries the dead
what is the memory of effort and what was left unsaid
It's important to feel the pain brought on
by one’s wounds not because it's a mistake to learn from
but because it's a reminder of the lessons still remaining
to be taught only because there are mouths still waiting to be fed
Desires must be procured, wants must be attained
but the needs must always be earned, and that's where
we all begin before an inner corruption seeps through
the oil that feeds the Fire only to leave us lashing out
against the Universe of humanity that's agreed to be our refuge
History's taught us less than what it could've by not teaching us anything at all
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)