LHC: Not one entity but a train of innovations.

Particle physics has jumped leaps and bounds to come to where it is now. Considering particle accelerators pre-1982 were restricted to either advanced linear colliders or colliders that studied particles whose lifetimes were nowhere as low as those of the Higgs boson or the four-quark hadrons, the last 30 years have witnessed an onslaught of exciting new technology focusing on accuracy, precision, speed and connectivity. These four attributes are together extremely important in the study of very-short-lived particles. However, separately, they are significant in a variety of industries, especially metrology, telecommunications, materials engineering, meteorology, cold storage and preservation, and diagnostics.

Let's break down the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) to see what parts it yields. The 27-km long tunnel is made of concrete and is 3.8 metres wide. Two beam pipes guide the particles around in opposite directions around the pipe at 0.999999991 times the speed of light (299,792,455 m/s), and when they've been sufficiently charged up, the particles can meet at one of four intersections between the pipes. To increase the chances of a head-on collision, 1,232 dipole magnets and 392 quadrupole magnets, arranged above and below the pipes, guide the particles around. The magnets weight a total of 12,500 tonnes, surpassed in size- only by the static ICAL detector's 50,000-ton magnet at India's INO.

[caption id="attachment_21265" align="aligncenter" width="448" caption="The Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) detector in the LHC"][/caption]

These 1,624 magnets are electromagnetic, and as their magnetic properties are turned on and off a little more than 22,000 times per second, they heat up. They can't be allowed to do that, however, and to cool them down, 96 tonnes of liquid helium is used to maintain the chunks of niobium-titanium at 1.9 K. In all, the magnets store 10 giga-joules of energy while generating a magnetic field of up to 8.3 tesla (about 332,000 times stronger than the Earth's) as 323 trillion protons gear up at near-light speeds for what can only be called the bloodiest civil war.

This (cooling business) makes the LHC the largest cryogenic storage facility of all-time, a VLSI exemplar we can work with as we move into a future in which the storage and transportation of hydrogen for fuel cells is an increasingly difficult problem - and not just because we haven't given it enough thought yet. You see, hydrogen is extremely explosive in the presence of oxygen, and readily reacts to form steam and a large quantity of heat. Therefore, hydrogen has to be stored in leak-proof containers that are capable of withstanding big shocks. It also has to be stored in its liquid state because gaseous hydrogen has an extremely low density and a very low mass can occupy a large volume.

[caption id="attachment_21266" align="aligncenter" width="400" caption="The cross-section of a cryopump"][/caption]

At the LHC, the liquid helium is stored in copper-jacketed cryostats that maintain its temperature at 1.9 K, which is circulated by means of special pumps called cryopumps. These pumps are maintained at the very low temperatures they require to remain functional by the compressed helium itself. However, in case of hydrogen, a smaller cryocooler can be attached to the cryopump (alongside a sorption pump - but that's not important now) so it remains cold and damp, and it can be made readily available for use using a regenerative evaporation process.

Also, if you didn't know, the entire working principle of the LHC is encapsulated by cyclotrons that work with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and Computerized Tomography (CT) scanners in medical diagnostics. Basically, these scanners detect the decay of radioactive isotope with a very short half-life (usually from 20 minutes to 110 minutes) within the human body through a series of beta decays and electron-positron annihilation events. They have a cyclotron in close proximity that generates these isotopes to be traced, and a cyclotron works on the same principle as the LHC: takes a charged particle, sets it on a curved path by exposing it to a magnetic field, continuously switches the direction of the magnetic field using two different sets of magnets that go on and off alternatively until the particle has sped up, and then releases it.

[caption id="attachment_21267" align="aligncenter" width="532" caption="A classical Lawrence cyclotron"][/caption]

Because the LHC's detectors have to detect high-energy collisions precisely, i.e. determine the particles' charge, mass and other quantum properties to within 99.99%, they have to have a high luminosity. Further, each detector is not just a place that receives signals and immediately interprets. Instead, the detector comprises of everything from the detection mechanism to the millions of read-out channels that transmit the data to supercomputing grids. This in-built capacity to work at various energies and with unpredictable scenarios gives the diagnostics and instrumentation industries a lot to work with when it comes to the fabrication of scanners.

As of now, the image reconstruction by the scanners is the most difficult task in the entire process. However, the technology has improved so much so that the different tracer isotopes and their biochemical reactions with tissues can be visualized even for previously sensitive sections of the body. In neuropsychiatry, for instance, a substance called a radioligand is used to label the dopamine, serotonin and opioid receptors in the brain. Then, using a suitable scanner like a PET, the levels and neurological pathways of these receptors are monitored over a period of time. Because the receptors' involvement in disorders like schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, substance abuse and mood disorders is significant, advancements in selecting the perfect radioligands, determining where what happens, and the ability to identify various kinds of reactions and reconstruct it in 3D can go a long way in finding suitable cures.

[caption id="attachment_21268" align="aligncenter" width="448" caption="In a PET scanner, an electron and an injected positron annihilate each other within the human body to produce two gamma rays. When these rays reach the scanner, they are recorded as a burst of light. The image of the brain from a PET scan, shown above, is reconstructed by orienting the scanner in various directions."][/caption]

The supercomputing grid mentioned earlier is an array of monstrously powerful computers assembled at the CERN capable of processing tens of gigabytes of data per second, churning out the results, ordering them, and then looking for patterns. At the same time, there is a Europe-wide project in place that allows volunteers to log in to the CERN server and permit the use of their computers' idle time for added computing power: LHC@home. Given that the CERN supercomputers are ahead in terms of computing complexity by orders of magnitude, I don't know how much computing power the initiative contributes that makes a difference. However, that such a concept exists is more important - especially considering we're in the era of cloud computing.

Another field of physics that requires such massive computing power is meteorology. The second-by-second reconstruction of weather patterns, cyclones, hurricanes, cloud movements, winds, rains, and ocean waves across a swath of oddly varying topographies with high unpredictability makes weather forecasting a superbitch. As of now, it is a task taken on only by national governments and prolific academic institutions. In this context, what if a computing grid existed that drew on volunteers' idle PC time to assist with the calculation and simulation of climactic patterns? This would reduce the load on existing computing infrastructure and release computation time for other calculations, making forecasting quicker. Or, interpreted another way, more timely.

Such tightly-coupled distributed programs, called clusters, work with advancements in running a synchronized algorithm in essentially asynchronized systems, and determination of event-sequences and logical cause-effects ("what happened when/what's next"). Clusters also have to address a host of other issues, and understanding how the CERN is dealing with them everyday will provide invaluable insight into setting up such systems in other industries, too. These issues include achievement of overall system reliability in the presence of some faulty processes, keeping the signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio down at all points by self-stabilization to reduce the amount of error, and the Two Generals' Problem.

[caption id="attachment_21269" align="aligncenter" width="438" caption="In the Two Generals' Problem, two generals await with their armies on either sides of a valley. The people they wait to conquer are in the valley, and the invasion will be successful only if both generals attack at the same time. Since sending a messenger through the valley could result in his being "flipped" or lost, a potentially infinite number of messengers will be required to confirm a time of action."][/caption]

These are only some of the innovations that the CERN has pioneered. In the 1980s, nobody could have foreseen the onset of such a spur of improvements because, then, the LHC was just a particle accelerator. As the years went by and the demands of the physics community grew, the countries came together to exercise their strengths and contribute to this project an idea, a component or some other service, anything that each country was at the forefront of. Moreover, the LHC also pushed regional and associated industries to toughen up, encourage research in niche areas, and think of better ways to make any idea reality quickly. And when the internet came up and opened the world up more than globalization had, one country's contributions proved to be another country's solutions, and the communications gap that had existed between them for all those years was broken by the experiment.

I'm sure there's a lot more to the collider, but the purpose of this endeavour was to illustrate that the LHC is not just a physics thing. Its contribution to mankind long surpassed the hunt for the Higgs boson: today, collider technology is everywhere from baby diapers and cereal boxes to X-ray spectroscopy, Bose-Einstein statistics and superconductors.

The fall of the Apollonian

The following is an account fictitious in most parts.

--

I wouldn't be far from the truth if I said beauty's long past retired from the larger things of this world, would I?

It's gone from the argent moon, it's gone from the amber sun, it's gone from the clouds, the sky and the rains, and it's gone from this good Earth. Now, beauty just resides in the small things, the things that can afford to harbour it without drawing too much attention to themselves, things that won't become less beautiful any time soon.

Now, beauty just resides in a woman's legs. Everything else about her is the subject of contention — apparently, she's either moving toward a image or away from one, and if neither, then she's an exception. Anyway, I don't have time for that; I've had enough of gender studies for a lifetime. What I'm here to talk about are a specific woman's legs.

I watched her as she walked around, looking for something or the other, every edge and vertex of her tapering legs outlined in those tight jeans. From beneath my bedsheet and under the dazzlingly bright tubelight, the unceasing journey of her legs was just the balm for the high fever I was running.

From the moment she stepped into my room, she'd sucked up all the beauty in it. The secure and infallible quadrangularity of these walls, the three chairs by the foot of the bed, the two recessions by the window lined symmetrically with cosmetic necessities, the rows of books by the table on my left, all was lost. They'd become droll syntax when, with one leg propped up on my waist, she bent down and whispered into my ear, "Can I get you anything?"

All the while, I stared at those delightful pinions, my mouth clamped shut with melancholic distress. Moving from her ass and down, the skin of her pants confluenced into her knee in a smooth streamline, free of all disconcerting turbulence. Thereon, her powerful calves became evident in the way she occasionally cocked her foot up, standing absentmindedly in the corner, her fingers grazing her lips.

The world was what it was when it was anything between her legs. When she walked, the cracks in the wall behind them seemed like black rivers that I was watching from outer space. When she leaned against the table, the drawer's keyhole seemed to be gazing at her hips, all steely malice. When she started to clean my room, everything that stood on shelves seemed to fall to the floor just so I could look at them from between her slender thighs. Then, the fallen would know recognition.

That bastard Nabokov got it just right. "The light of my life. The fire of..." No. She's not the fire of my loins. She's something else, although nothing so crude or abject. She's a retreating cumulonimbus, a floating shadow riddled with mortality and demise, all for the single purchase of perfection. One day, her legs will become frail and she will sit down on the rocking chair.

On that day, I will see into her eyes for the first time and try and understand what she's been thinking about all this while. Whether she saw me as the same object I always saw her as but refused to concede it in argument. I hope she did, I hope she did because I will then stand vindicated. That will make this very moment a Carthaginian orgy or, better yet, a Dionysian one.

One ear less

How long would humankind last if each human had only one ear, and if it did, how different would the world be?

1. Lack of physical balance?


2. Absence of symmetric infrastructure and technology?


3. "Lopsided" conversations?


4. Dissociation of beauty from symmetry?


5. A much-less messy self-portrait by van Gogh?

An e-mail conversation between R Radhakrishnan and me

Mail from me

Dear sir,

I hope you're keeping well. I was fortunate enough to attend your lecture 'Tracking the simulacrum' at ACJ on the first day of August, 2011. Fantastic lecture, I haven't been intellectually stimulated like this in a while. For that, thank you very much.

I have an engineering background and consequently tend to contextualize everything I learn as a process, and if resources avail, as systems. On that note, with reference to your ideas on self-reflexivity (and perhaps denaturalization), would it be fair to say that the notions can be analogized to the characters in Edwin Abbott's book 'Flatland' (1884)? That the nature of self-reflexivity can be explained by the inability of the two-dimensional objects to understand the real nature of the three-dimensional sphere? Going another way, can it also be analogized to the sphere's ability to view Flatland in its entirety while the lines and shapes can't?

Perhaps just as an afterthought: can self-reflexivity as a macropolitical tool be applied to the Victorian society and its collapse in the face of growing and expanding communication systems? I ask this only because Flatland itself was said to make references to the male and female lifestyles during the Victorian era.

That's about it. I wish I'd asked these questions in class but I just assimilated your points enough to get this far. Hope you have good evening, sir.

Regards,

Vasudevan Mukunth

Reply from Radha

Dear Vasu (If I may, and please call me Radha),

Greetings, and thank you so much for your immensely generous appreciation of my lecture. so glad it worked for you.  i had a great time as well.

You bring up important questions.  not having read flatland, i can't be too specific in my response.  but i do get the drift of your general questions and i agree with you. i particularly appreciate your "engineers's" stress on systems and structures and their relationship to the lifeworld of which they are a part, but not a "natural" part. the question of nature and what it means or should mean, descriptively as well as normatively, i crucial. do read habermas, foucault, and judith butler.  also important to see how structures and systems partake both of the macro and the micropolitical, i would like to hear you say more on what self reflexivity means to you. i am thinking of herbert simon and boubded rationality.

Do stay in touch and let us keep talking, cheers, anmd with all good wishes,

radha

Reply from me

Hey Radha! (Feels awkward - and yeah, Vasu's fine)

I hope you're keeping well. Thanks for the prompt response, it alleviated a lot of doubts about my questions being stupid. And I must apologise about the length of this mail.

First off, bounded rationality: this concept I came across in another form in computational linguistics. In the late 19th century, Benjamin Whorf and Edward Sapir put forth their eponymous hypothesis that "the difference in the significance of languages is the difference in the significance of the perceptions of its speakers." In '57, Chomsky came up with universal grammar: all languages are accompanied by psychological nativism and a poverty of the stimulus. These rules struck at the heart of the empiricist position of language acquisition. So, by being born with preset capabilities, are we also beset by preset deficiencies that limit the scope of our successes? Here, we come to bounded rationalism as an immediate consequence of the existence of a universal grammar - and perhaps also to Nietzsche's 'Amor fati'. But this is a purely psychosocial argument.

Secondly, structuralism and rationalist theory: here, mathematics avails a solution I've been fond of in the past. John Nash's game theory. Simon's three steps to arrive at a decision are identification of alternatives, consequences of alternatives, and evaluation of relevance of consequences. All three are modeled on the necessity of a stable system (as engineers study in thermodynamics!), the condition that finite variables exist, and the condition that only a finite number of consequences are possible (my interests in structuralism end here). In that case,

1. Does the macropolitical structure transform into a metastructure when it comes to assessing the symbolism of a micropolitical reality?


2. What does that entail?


3. If it doesn't, then is the new mediator subjectivism?


4. In that case, is the purpose of subjectivist knowledge to reconcile the self-reflexive identity against the backdrop of a macropolitical entity?


5. Or, is subjective knowledge purely a micropolitical issue?

This, I think, leads to Carnap's question: can ontological questions have objective answers? Here, as an engineer, I'm reminded of metaphysical naturalism as well.

Finally, the question I find most pressing is whether or not it is necessary for us to adopt a framework - a structuralist tool - in the context of which we view this world. For example, consider the statement "The sun rises in the east after it has set in the west." This means that an eastern sunrise follows a western sunset, ergo there's east and west and there's a sun. All these answers are within the framework of the statement. However, a question like "Is there really a sun?" prompts us to question the validity of the framework itself, thereby asking us to step outside and evaluate it. Now, how do we evaluate it?

That's about it. Sorry again about the length of this mail. I know there's a good chance of me having come off as a bore.

And I've queued a whole bunch of articles by Habermas and Butler. Thanks for the tip!

Good night and regards,

Vasu

Retort from Radha         

great issues to think about. i don'r get the amor fati connection which to me has to do with the eternal return. do read my history, the human, and the world between for more on temporality and historicity.

I think you can arrive at bounded rationality through various ways.  computational linguistics is clearly one path. i am no big fan of chomsky.  i am a fan of chomsky the activist, not the epistemologist.  i am not sure of the connection you are making between universal grammar and b rationality.

Is microplitical to macropliotical simiar to what subjectivism is to objectivity is an interesting trajectory.  Feminists, Foucaultians, and Marxists have much to contribute here.

BTW, i have a bunch opf published stuff in these and related areas, should you at any point read any of it, do feel free to comment, critique.  cheers,

Radha

An e-mail conversation between R Radhakrishnan and me

Mail from me

Dear sir,

I hope you're keeping well. I was fortunate enough to attend your lecture 'Tracking the simulacrum' at ACJ on the first day of August, 2011. Fantastic lecture, I haven't been intellectually stimulated like this in a while. For that, thank you very much.

I have an engineering background and consequently tend to contextualize everything I learn as a process, and if resources avail, as systems. On that note, with reference to your ideas on self-reflexivity (and perhaps denaturalization), would it be fair to say that the notions can be analogized to the characters in Edwin Abbott's book 'Flatland' (1884)? That the nature of self-reflexivity can be explained by the inability of the two-dimensional objects to understand the real nature of the three-dimensional sphere? Going another way, can it also be analogized to the sphere's ability to view Flatland in its entirety while the lines and shapes can't?

Perhaps just as an afterthought: can self-reflexivity as a macropolitical tool be applied to the Victorian society and its collapse in the face of growing and expanding communication systems? I ask this only because Flatland itself was said to make references to the male and female lifestyles during the Victorian era.

That's about it. I wish I'd asked these questions in class but I just assimilated your points enough to get this far. Hope you have good evening, sir.

Regards,

Vasudevan Mukunth

Reply from Radha

Dear Vasu (If I may, and please call me Radha),

Greetings, and thank you so much for your immensely generous appreciation of my lecture. so glad it worked for you.  i had a great time as well.

You bring up important questions.  not having read flatland, i can't be too specific in my response.  but i do get the drift of your general questions and i agree with you. i particularly appreciate your "engineers's" stress on systems and structures and their relationship to the lifeworld of which they are a part, but not a "natural" part. the question of nature and what it means or should mean, descriptively as well as normatively, i crucial. do read habermas, foucault, and judith butler.  also important to see how structures and systems partake both of the macro and the micropolitical, i would like to hear you say more on what self reflexivity means to you. i am thinking of herbert simon and boubded rationality.

Do stay in touch and let us keep talking, cheers, anmd with all good wishes,

radha

Reply from me

Hey Radha! (Feels awkward - and yeah, Vasu's fine)

I hope you're keeping well. Thanks for the prompt response, it alleviated a lot of doubts about my questions being stupid. And I must apologise about the length of this mail.

First off, bounded rationality: this concept I came across in another form in computational linguistics. In the late 19th century, Benjamin Whorf and Edward Sapir put forth their eponymous hypothesis that "the difference in the significance of languages is the difference in the significance of the perceptions of its speakers." In '57, Chomsky came up with universal grammar: all languages are accompanied by psychological nativism and a poverty of the stimulus. These rules struck at the heart of the empiricist position of language acquisition. So, by being born with preset capabilities, are we also beset by preset deficiencies that limit the scope of our successes? Here, we come to bounded rationalism as an immediate consequence of the existence of a universal grammar - and perhaps also to Nietzsche's 'Amor fati'. But this is a purely psychosocial argument.

Secondly, structuralism and rationalist theory: here, mathematics avails a solution I've been fond of in the past. John Nash's game theory. Simon's three steps to arrive at a decision are identification of alternatives, consequences of alternatives, and evaluation of relevance of consequences. All three are modeled on the necessity of a stable system (as engineers study in thermodynamics!), the condition that finite variables exist, and the condition that only a finite number of consequences are possible (my interests in structuralism end here). In that case,

1. Does the macropolitical structure transform into a metastructure when it comes to assessing the symbolism of a micropolitical reality?


2. What does that entail?


3. If it doesn't, then is the new mediator subjectivism?


4. In that case, is the purpose of subjectivist knowledge to reconcile the self-reflexive identity against the backdrop of a macropolitical entity?


5. Or, is subjective knowledge purely a micropolitical issue?

This, I think, leads to Carnap's question: can ontological questions have objective answers? Here, as an engineer, I'm reminded of metaphysical naturalism as well.

Finally, the question I find most pressing is whether or not it is necessary for us to adopt a framework - a structuralist tool - in the context of which we view this world. For example, consider the statement "The sun rises in the east after it has set in the west." This means that an eastern sunrise follows a western sunset, ergo there's east and west and there's a sun. All these answers are within the framework of the statement. However, a question like "Is there really a sun?" prompts us to question the validity of the framework itself, thereby asking us to step outside and evaluate it. Now, how do we evaluate it?

That's about it. Sorry again about the length of this mail. I know there's a good chance of me having come off as a bore.

And I've queued a whole bunch of articles by Habermas and Butler. Thanks for the tip!

Good night and regards,

Vasu

Retort from Radha         

great issues to think about. i don'r get the amor fati connection which to me has to do with the eternal return. do read my history, the human, and the world between for more on temporality and historicity.

I think you can arrive at bounded rationality through various ways.  computational linguistics is clearly one path. i am no big fan of chomsky.  i am a fan of chomsky the activist, not the epistemologist.  i am not sure of the connection you are making between universal grammar and b rationality.

Is microplitical to macropliotical simiar to what subjectivism is to objectivity is an interesting trajectory.  Feminists, Foucaultians, and Marxists have much to contribute here.

BTW, i have a bunch opf published stuff in these and related areas, should you at any point read any of it, do feel free to comment, critique.  cheers,

Radha

The Spielberg-Kafka Impasse

The following are afterthoughts - as seems to have become the norm - concerning a good lecture by Prof. R. Radhakrishnan at the Asian College of Journalism on the 1st day of August, 2011.

--

Professionalism

I profess skill. Therefore, I join a profession. Do I therefore incur the responsibilities dictated by professionalism? Before we discuss the source of values, before we seek to include the mechanism of ethics in our discussion, it's important to address the basic conflict in the form of professionalism on the one hand and simply fulfilling responsibilities on the other.

Disregard the context for a minute: where do values come from? They are always self-imposed because they are the consequences of subjective evaluations of our reality by ourselves (they do not arise out of the context itself and, thus, the loss of context does not matter in understanding the nature of our values). When different people espouse different values, the institution no longer remains in a position to enjoin what those values are but still is able to hire or fire those it deems compatible with its goals.

Are values a priori? No. Are they necessary? They seem to be. Why? I've addressed this question earlier: the system of values that we deem necessary is a matter of personal choice; however, it is neither mandated nor forbidden. Are they the principle definitions of a general ethical code of conduct?

Possibly: the "goodness" quotient of the outcome of my actions is evaluated against the requirements of my profession together with certain humanistic unavoidables. In that light, my system of values - if any - is going to be influenced by the safeguarding of my interests and perhaps those of the organization, too. Values, I believe, are strictly a posteriori.

Freedom

Say what you will, freedom is a conversational piece. A flosculation. Perhaps its most palpable forms as such have all been macropolitical. In the micropolitical sense, however, it's a modality that gets diffused in various field logics, perhaps as a result of attempts by the freedom-seeker to contextualize it.

Reality itself has been undeniably victimized by such things as inflation and globalization: the "bigger picture" as I choose to see it does not step beyond the confines of my laptop. Consequently, my freedom is limited to the choices I will have a right to access and/or make, and so my freedom is to customize my Facebook profile, my freedom is my right to privacy on the web, and so forth.

There comes a difference when the macropolitical and the micropolitical engage, whereby a mitigating mediating force becomes apparent. When Gandhi asked those seeking to "do good" to consider what good they would do for the common man, did philanthropists and samaritans scurry to seek out the necessities of the common person? Or did they surmise the nature of the common man's micropolitical environment and scaled down the relevance of their ambitions?

In the name of what?

What am I speaking for? (Too many people go on at ACJ about how they've asked themselves this very question so many times - so what? I've asked myself the question many times, too, and I don't get the implied significance - are things all that ambivalent?).

Whether or not a collective is involved is irrelevant to me: as long as I am being representational, I will represent only that face of the collective that embodies all that is necessary for the representation to be accurate, i.e., like an individual who is the summa of all that the collective wishes communicated.

A minor reference to historicity becomes necessary (or, as Prof. Radhakrishnan chose to call it, temporality): to do something "in the name of an event that has become a part of history and acquired a political, social, cultural or economic flavour because of its eventual outcome."

(Say a man approaches a crossroads at which his friend awaits. The man says to his friend, "My cause is X." The friend replies, "I endorse your cause. Now, go forth." Presented with three options, the man picks the path straight ahead. He walks it, and its end he finds he has emerged a supporter of cause Y. Now, can the man's friend be said to endorse cause Y?)

What's your dharma?

Does idealism have its price in a world that constantly debates its pertinence? Is it fair to consistently toe the line as a matter of principle? Am I going to talk about just what shouldn't be talked about? It's the whole professionalism versus fundamentalism argument once more (I mean "fundamentalist" in its original sense).

Dharma is a perception of the self when between objective reality and subjective reality, and as such the former's existence is a matter of debate. However, irrespective of the conflict between a way of thinking and a way of practising, my dharma is a mechanism constituted by my experiences to model them (i.e., the ways).

However, there is some abrasion in the form of my individual autonomy. When extant in some reality, is it possible for me to not precipitate the antecedence of reality to my intervention? In other words, can I act without being acted upon, perhaps without reality having been presumptuous of my actions?

It wouldn't be right, I conclude, that the truth, per se, exists independent of my existence and so constitutes an independent reality with the employ of which I can reflect myself. Reality will always be antecedent of my intervention because I am involved in the constitution of that reality, and when I act, I can only do so in spaces that have room for the outcome/effect.

The truth is a negotiated simplification because I exist relative to a totality. (This reminds me of a post I wrote quite some time ago on the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis in linguistic theory.)

The simulacrum

When moving from being real to being intelligible, we move away from the objective existence of reality and toward the subjective counterpart (as if they're distinct!), and in the process attempt to include our understanding of reality. This "understanding" is encapsulated by the production of intelligibility (tied in with, but different from, the production of meaning).

So, what does it mean to have a point of view?

Just as in the previous statements, intelligibility also suffers from the marriage of existence and subjectivity: the question of a universally extant intelligibility is mired with the likelihood of the creation of new frames of knowledge in order to create such understanding. Just like the notion of freedom is extra-political, the moment we put something into words in order to understand it, we suffuse it with the persisting symbolism in language: a mediator rises like a snake on the bosom.

Ultimately, all of this condenses into the nature of the posthuman subject: just like Abhinavagupta's Shaivite position held that the individual consciousness is an individuation of the universal consciousness that is God, the posthuman is an individuation of the unified human entity. Being in possession of an emergent ontology, only the posthuman subject is capable of self-reflexivity, i.e., to avail the option of defying norms, etc., simply by availing the tools with which to study his reflection.

If you've read Edwin Abbott's Flatland (1884), the nature of self-reflexivity (as in social theories) can be explained by the inability of the two-dimensional objects to understand the real nature of the three-dimensional sphere. Going another way, it can also be analogized to the sphere's ability to view Flatland in its entirety while the lines and shapes can't.

And that brings us to...

The Spielberg-Kafka Impasse

Steven Spielberg must never adapt Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis for the silver-screen. Kafka's insectoid captured perhaps the uncapturable aspect of change and of displacement, and its now-Kafkaesque surrealism is befitting because it leaves ample space for interpretation.

If Spielberg made a movie out of it, the imagery would become set in stone, its changeable nature lost to the mass of readers who find solace in Kafka's consideration of such emotions. The posthuman would settle down back into the human entity, no longer capable of assuming different identities at will, the mediating ghosts would turn into phantoms, in their wake leaving a world incapable of change.

The Spielberg-Kafka Impasse

The following are afterthoughts - as seems to have become the norm - concerning a good lecture by Prof. R. Radhakrishnan at the Asian College of Journalism on the 1st day of August, 2011.

--

Professionalism

I profess skill. Therefore, I join a profession. Do I therefore incur the responsibilities dictated by professionalism? Before we discuss the source of values, before we seek to include the mechanism of ethics in our discussion, it's important to address the basic conflict in the form of professionalism on the one hand and simply fulfilling responsibilities on the other.

Disregard the context for a minute: where do values come from? They are always self-imposed because they are the consequences of subjective evaluations of our reality by ourselves (they do not arise out of the context itself and, thus, the loss of context does not matter in understanding the nature of our values). When different people espouse different values, the institution no longer remains in a position to enjoin what those values are but still is able to hire or fire those it deems compatible with its goals.

Are values a priori? No. Are they necessary? They seem to be. Why? I've addressed this question earlier: the system of values that we deem necessary is a matter of personal choice; however, it is neither mandated nor forbidden. Are they the principle definitions of a general ethical code of conduct?

Possibly: the "goodness" quotient of the outcome of my actions is evaluated against the requirements of my profession together with certain humanistic unavoidables. In that light, my system of values - if any - is going to be influenced by the safeguarding of my interests and perhaps those of the organization, too. Values, I believe, are strictly a posteriori.

Freedom

Say what you will, freedom is a conversational piece. A flosculation. Perhaps its most palpable forms as such have all been macropolitical. In the micropolitical sense, however, it's a modality that gets diffused in various field logics, perhaps as a result of attempts by the freedom-seeker to contextualize it.

Reality itself has been undeniably victimized by such things as inflation and globalization: the "bigger picture" as I choose to see it does not step beyond the confines of my laptop. Consequently, my freedom is limited to the choices I will have a right to access and/or make, and so my freedom is to customize my Facebook profile, my freedom is my right to privacy on the web, and so forth.

There comes a difference when the macropolitical and the micropolitical engage, whereby a mitigating mediating force becomes apparent. When Gandhi asked those seeking to "do good" to consider what good they would do for the common man, did philanthropists and samaritans scurry to seek out the necessities of the common person? Or did they surmise the nature of the common man's micropolitical environment and scaled down the relevance of their ambitions?

In the name of what?

What am I speaking for? (Too many people go on at ACJ about how they've asked themselves this very question so many times - so what? I've asked myself the question many times, too, and I don't get the implied significance - are things all that ambivalent?).

Whether or not a collective is involved is irrelevant to me: as long as I am being representational, I will represent only that face of the collective that embodies all that is necessary for the representation to be accurate, i.e., like an individual who is the summa of all that the collective wishes communicated.

A minor reference to historicity becomes necessary (or, as Prof. Radhakrishnan chose to call it, temporality): to do something "in the name of an event that has become a part of history and acquired a political, social, cultural or economic flavour because of its eventual outcome."

(Say a man approaches a crossroads at which his friend awaits. The man says to his friend, "My cause is X." The friend replies, "I endorse your cause. Now, go forth." Presented with three options, the man picks the path straight ahead. He walks it, and its end he finds he has emerged a supporter of cause Y. Now, can the man's friend be said to endorse cause Y?)

What's your dharma?

Does idealism have its price in a world that constantly debates its pertinence? Is it fair to consistently toe the line as a matter of principle? Am I going to talk about just what shouldn't be talked about? It's the whole professionalism versus fundamentalism argument once more (I mean "fundamentalist" in its original sense).

Dharma is a perception of the self when between objective reality and subjective reality, and as such the former's existence is a matter of debate. However, irrespective of the conflict between a way of thinking and a way of practising, my dharma is a mechanism constituted by my experiences to model them (i.e., the ways).

However, there is some abrasion in the form of my individual autonomy. When extant in some reality, is it possible for me to not precipitate the antecedence of reality to my intervention? In other words, can I act without being acted upon, perhaps without reality having been presumptuous of my actions?

It wouldn't be right, I conclude, that the truth, per se, exists independent of my existence and so constitutes an independent reality with the employ of which I can reflect myself. Reality will always be antecedent of my intervention because I am involved in the constitution of that reality, and when I act, I can only do so in spaces that have room for the outcome/effect.

The truth is a negotiated simplification because I exist relative to a totality. (This reminds me of a post I wrote quite some time ago on the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis in linguistic theory.)

The simulacrum

When moving from being real to being intelligible, we move away from the objective existence of reality and toward the subjective counterpart (as if they're distinct!), and in the process attempt to include our understanding of reality. This "understanding" is encapsulated by the production of intelligibility (tied in with, but different from, the production of meaning).

So, what does it mean to have a point of view?

Just as in the previous statements, intelligibility also suffers from the marriage of existence and subjectivity: the question of a universally extant intelligibility is mired with the likelihood of the creation of new frames of knowledge in order to create such understanding. Just like the notion of freedom is extra-political, the moment we put something into words in order to understand it, we suffuse it with the persisting symbolism in language: a mediator rises like a snake on the bosom.

Ultimately, all of this condenses into the nature of the posthuman subject: just like Abhinavagupta's Shaivite position held that the individual consciousness is an individuation of the universal consciousness that is God, the posthuman is an individuation of the unified human entity. Being in possession of an emergent ontology, only the posthuman subject is capable of self-reflexivity, i.e., to avail the option of defying norms, etc., simply by availing the tools with which to study his reflection.

If you've read Edwin Abbott's Flatland (1884), the nature of self-reflexivity (as in social theories) can be explained by the inability of the two-dimensional objects to understand the real nature of the three-dimensional sphere. Going another way, it can also be analogized to the sphere's ability to view Flatland in its entirety while the lines and shapes can't.

And that brings us to...

The Spielberg-Kafka Impasse

Steven Spielberg must never adapt Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis for the silver-screen. Kafka's insectoid captured perhaps the uncapturable aspect of change and of displacement, and its now-Kafkaesque surrealism is befitting because it leaves ample space for interpretation.

If Spielberg made a movie out of it, the imagery would become set in stone, its changeable nature lost to the mass of readers who find solace in Kafka's consideration of such emotions. The posthuman would settle down back into the human entity, no longer capable of assuming different identities at will, the mediating ghosts would turn into phantoms, in their wake leaving a world incapable of change.

Lessons from a plate of spinach

"Here, have this."

"What's it?"

"Spinach and rice."

"I hate the taste of spinach!"

"Do have it! It tastes good!"

"How! How do you know it tastes good?"

"Because it tasted good?"

"Because it tasted good for you!"

"Yeah... so?"

"How do you know it's going to taste good for me?"

"Well..."

*

"What is this?"

"It's spinach curry."

"You know I hate the taste-"

"Yes, yes! But I've cooked it different this time."

"What's the difference?"

"Now it tastes better!"

"How do you know-"

"Because it tastes for even me!"

"Because the spinach tastes better for you?"

"Yes, it does! Taste it!"

"I didn't like it when it tasted one way. Now, you've made it a better way."

"Yeah?"

"So, I didn't like it when it was just fine. Now you think I'll like it when the spinachness of the dish is enhanced?"

"Well..."

*

"Here, have this."

"What's this?"

"Spinach."

"Again?"

"Yeah!"

"Why so often?"

"Because I like it."

"Why do you like it?"

"Because it tastes better than most other stuff I eat."

"So you make spinach all the time?"

"Yeah?"

"Because you found out you liked something, you're going to make sure you keep liking it."

"If you have to put it like that..."

"Did you enjoy finding out you liked spinach?"

"Oh, yeah, it was at that dinner-"

"OK, OK, OK. So, you found something you liked, you enjoyed the feeling, and now you're happy to be stuck with that feeling?"

"Well..."

*

"Here, have this."

"Is it spinach?"

"Nope."

"Oh! How come?"

"I took your advice. Made beans instead."

"Ah! Smart choice. You liking the beans?"

"Not. One. Bit."

"Making a note of it?"

"Oh, yeah!"

"So... no more spinach?"

"Nope."

"Why not?"

"Gotta find out more likes."

"You found one thing you liked and then you dumped it?"

"Well... yeah! I found something. Score! Let's move on. You taught me that!"

"So, you're essentially betraying your association with spinach."

"What?"

"Don't you think you owe it to yourself that you stick to something you know you like rather than go after something you think you'll like?"

"But you said-"

"I know what I said."

"Then why are you doing this?"

"You're the one who likes spinach."

Lessons from a plate of spinach

"Here, have this."

"What's it?"

"Spinach and rice."

"I hate the taste of spinach!"

"Do have it! It tastes good!"

"How! How do you know it tastes good?"

"Because it tasted good?"

"Because it tasted good for you!"

"Yeah... so?"

"How do you know it's going to taste good for me?"

"Well..."

*

"What is this?"

"It's spinach curry."

"You know I hate the taste-"

"Yes, yes! But I've cooked it different this time."

"What's the difference?"

"Now it tastes better!"

"How do you know-"

"Because it tastes for even me!"

"Because the spinach tastes better for you?"

"Yes, it does! Taste it!"

"I didn't like it when it tasted one way. Now, you've made it a better way."

"Yeah?"

"So, I didn't like it when it was just fine. Now you think I'll like it when the spinachness of the dish is enhanced?"

"Well..."

*

"Here, have this."

"What's this?"

"Spinach."

"Again?"

"Yeah!"

"Why so often?"

"Because I like it."

"Why do you like it?"

"Because it tastes better than most other stuff I eat."

"So you make spinach all the time?"

"Yeah?"

"Because you found out you liked something, you're going to make sure you keep liking it."

"If you have to put it like that..."

"Did you enjoy finding out you liked spinach?"

"Oh, yeah, it was at that dinner-"

"OK, OK, OK. So, you found something you liked, you enjoyed the feeling, and now you're happy to be stuck with that feeling?"

"Well..."

*

"Here, have this."

"Is it spinach?"

"Nope."

"Oh! How come?"

"I took your advice. Made beans instead."

"Ah! Smart choice. You liking the beans?"

"Not. One. Bit."

"Making a note of it?"

"Oh, yeah!"

"So... no more spinach?"

"Nope."

"Why not?"

"Gotta find out more likes."

"You found one thing you liked and then you dumped it?"

"Well... yeah! I found something. Score! Let's move on. You taught me that!"

"So, you're essentially betraying your association with spinach."

"What?"

"Don't you think you owe it to yourself that you stick to something you know you like rather than go after something you think you'll like?"

"But you said-"

"I know what I said."

"Then why are you doing this?"

"You're the one who likes spinach."

Why Quentin Tarantino is wrong

(This article involves a prelude that I insist you read.)

It's important to understand that technology does not, and will not for a long time to come, replace emotional expression and emotional honesty, and that's where I think the great Quentin Tarantino could be wrong. He once famously stated that,

"You can't write poetry on a computer."

I appreciate his loyalty to the ideals of romanticism but, looking at it axiomatically, he chose to say "computer" and not anything else (although don't ask me what "anything else" could be). What does a computer do to effectively reduce the "poeticness" of a poem? What is it about an electronically supplied numerical input and an electromagnetically generated visual output that is beaten by a leaky fountain pen and paper that crumbles at the lightest touch-or should I say that it is a matter of individual investment and computers limit that when they shouldn't? I don't agree. If anything, typewriters and computers make it easier to compose real poetry: poetry that is completely independent of its medium, poetry that finds it rational to reflect only the literary prowess and emotional content of the individual (objective) and not his/her association with the oldest form of literary communication (subjective).

Poetry, you see, is an abstraction just like beauty and justice are, and if Tarantino thinks he can't find them in a computer or only on a piece of paper, then it's also unfortunately obvious that his films are a product of iconoclastic ideals and the chance of the occasion that I was to be born in 1988, and that doesn't happen often.

Our individual attitude towards technology does not change the way technology itself behaves; it only changes how much we think it can do for us when we take to it-and this applies even to the tech that is constantly being upgraded and modified to satiate different needs. Similarly, poetry that requires a "non-computer" to be realized is not poetry but what we think is poetry: it is subjective interpretation, one that fails in the face of the slightest opposition, and therefore cannot withstand the test of time.

Why Quentin Tarantino is wrong

(This article involves a prelude that I insist you read.)

It's important to understand that technology does not, and will not for a long time to come, replace emotional expression and emotional honesty, and that's where I think the great Quentin Tarantino could be wrong. He once famously stated that,

"You can't write poetry on a computer."

I appreciate his loyalty to the ideals of romanticism but, looking at it axiomatically, he chose to say "computer" and not anything else (although don't ask me what "anything else" could be). What does a computer do to effectively reduce the "poeticness" of a poem? What is it about an electronically supplied numerical input and an electromagnetically generated visual output that is beaten by a leaky fountain pen and paper that crumbles at the lightest touch-or should I say that it is a matter of individual investment and computers limit that when they shouldn't? I don't agree. If anything, typewriters and computers make it easier to compose real poetry: poetry that is completely independent of its medium, poetry that finds it rational to reflect only the literary prowess and emotional content of the individual (objective) and not his/her association with the oldest form of literary communication (subjective).

Poetry, you see, is an abstraction just like beauty and justice are, and if Tarantino thinks he can't find them in a computer or only on a piece of paper, then it's also unfortunately obvious that his films are a product of iconoclastic ideals and the chance of the occasion that I was to be born in 1988, and that doesn't happen often.

Our individual attitude towards technology does not change the way technology itself behaves; it only changes how much we think it can do for us when we take to it-and this applies even to the tech that is constantly being upgraded and modified to satiate different needs. Similarly, poetry that requires a "non-computer" to be realized is not poetry but what we think is poetry: it is subjective interpretation, one that fails in the face of the slightest opposition, and therefore cannot withstand the test of time.

On that eternal path to winter, hidden away in that distant grayness where boughs bend over the lone trespasser to cast whimsical shadows, there is a summer glow stashed away between the gnarled union between tree and earth. It is the cause of much wonderment and despair, of the tinctures of curiosity lining the teary eyes of damsels, of the industrial sheen of sweat and blood upon the breastplate of fallen knights; it is the last vestige of an old summer. Where the mournful distance of life brings down the demons and devils upon each dust-specked footstep, there is a dream that must be filled by that golden glow.

Slowly, a vortex swirls up into the wayward winds and brings them together in its screamed cause... meus causa est meus mos! The orb of fire dips down beyond the western world and an argent disc rises up in its stead, and the falling leaves know it is the time to join battle. The mortal rage of a rufescent summer awakens from its stupor to meet the quiet and crawling invasion of wolves, werewolves and winter, and they clash! In the union of metallic thorns, brazen gauntlets and recrudescent valor, the skies and all its worldly subjects witness a last stand by all of nature's forces to possess the child who watches... who watches... from the gnarled union between touch and sensation... between intention and reality.

Lights! Music! Walk!

Watch! Watch her defeat the grace that has always subdued her, cowed her into a thing of beauty, and watch on as she becomes the woman whose fury Hell toils to match! Watch her skirt through the rubble, accursed to rot in the rustic glow of a doleful sunset, and mourn with fury the loss of her love! Watch her break free, in the name of all anarchy, and dismiss your attention for its patronizing hedonism... bleed, sire and soul, for then you will know the painful journey she waits to finish!

On height

M: Ahh OK

So you're my age now.

How does it feel?

B: hahahahahah!

i feel no difference :P

M: Really? I feel young all of a sudden just because I'm just as old as you are! :D

B: :)

:D

M: I wish I was 5' 5" though

B: why so?

so short?

M: Being so tall, it's not easy for me to hide from the outside world a=or find loneliness in both the excessive size of a jacket as well as the width of a normal mattress

:(

B: lmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

M: :P

You should appreciate your height!

B: oh really???

M: The grass is always greener on the other side, and looking at you from my side, I wish I was short and diminutive, from where I do not have to face any demands of being stylish while being as stylish as I can be without suffering the comments of the holier-than-thou fashionistas.

On height

M: Ahh OK

So you're my age now.

How does it feel?

B: hahahahahah!

i feel no difference :P

M: Really? I feel young all of a sudden just because I'm just as old as you are! :D

B: :)

:D

M: I wish I was 5' 5" though

B: why so?

so short?

M: Being so tall, it's not easy for me to hide from the outside world a=or find loneliness in both the excessive size of a jacket as well as the width of a normal mattress

:(

B: lmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

M: :P

You should appreciate your height!

B: oh really???

M: The grass is always greener on the other side, and looking at you from my side, I wish I was short and diminutive, from where I do not have to face any demands of being stylish while being as stylish as I can be without suffering the comments of the holier-than-thou fashionistas.

One solipsistic half

I wish I had something unwritten lying around somewhere: that way, I would only have to find it to know that I will have written something soon. Embossed with the faint shapes of letters strung together as unborn words, I ought to still have the freedom to decide what I want to write about; the moment I have, however, I will only be informed of how it is to be put down. Like a dog on a leash—neither loose nor tight—that accompanies its walker around the neighbourhood, through alleys and lanes, avenues and boulevards, all the while neither being lead nor being goaded, I must be turned to fill up the pages one after another knowing neither the futility of my will nor the successes of my endeavour. Does there exist such a magical manuscript that I may only discover it? Perhaps there does, from the moment I finish a sentence and sit back, pondering upon the text to follow—continuity of essence, enrichment of character, the like—the finished work flashes before my eyes, sculpted to perfection by a visceral sense that pierces together experience and desire, and I reach forward to touch the phantasm, aware full well of the disappointment that awaits as is due its illusory existence, and so pick the pen up once more, knowing what must definitely follow. Ha! Would that my mind was so pleasurably dual—nay!—and I suffer already the pains of Peter's theft, the vulgarity of Paul's profits...

Ghost Wilkie

As soon as they found out that Father Ribisi was insured, they also found arsenic in his tea.

After deciding to leave the cabin, momma and poppa fighting, we drew lots and then drove east.

The city was magnificent but dull, something and nothing: people wore flashy coats but no smiles.

Leka was born on a wintry New York night under no moon but many stars.

That was the night pappa walked out with the bounty, plunging us into poverty.

Momma was having more and more drunk men over to tolerate lonely nights.

The farm was not doing as well as she thought it was.

She discovered that I was the one cutting up the roosters.

Church was the place for me; my family ditched me.

Embracing religion would be necessary to inculcate disciplining habits.

I had diarrhoea from drinking the holy water.

I was given morphine to be silenced.

The doctor groped me all over.

Wild electric shocks underneath skin.

Acidic taste on tongue.

Tincture of opium.

Golden bitch.

Laudanum.

Microcosm of blasphemies

Smoke and Nebula have met once! I've come to believe that all smoke and all nebulae have some depth-any amount of depth that is some-and of Smoke's depth, I'm intrigued. He is rich, he is happily settled, perhaps happily joined, too-however small the chance of that may be-and has the one Cloud from that one meeting. Whenever we converse, he reveals not much; he is quick to crack a joke, he is quick to sprout in laughter, he is quick to philanthropy, and his demeanour only tells me he gives away so that he may receive in return the right to condescension. Agreed, altruism is a false virtue; nevertheless, Smoke is, by the looks of it, plastic: the veritable subject of any inquisition on the foibles of human nature, a true man-not the manly man, but the one who has known damage and, thereafter, recovered to completion, a true man.

The metaphysics of cricket

Watching cricket is such joy. It's a strange sort of team-play that the game necessitates, first in pairs by batsmen who score the runs and then as a unit of 11 men who attempt to defend their score by reinforcing the assaults of a series of bowlers in the form of a fielding unit. Unlike a game of football—whose example I invoke simply because it is the world's most watched sport—a game of cricket presents a theoretical number of infinite opportunities for an underdog to turn a losing game into a thumping victory. The gambit of procedures and regulations that sustain the adequation of each of the contending teams is necessitated by such numbers of chances, which are in turn actuated by how the game is, across any format, multi-faceted.

*

There have been many accusations directed toward the governing council (ICC) for letting what was once called a "gentleman's game" evolve to include sledging and 'not walking' as only issues of ambiguous morality and for not enforcing sterner measures against them. However, I believe that any civility that the game was envisioned to hold was intended only to address the social conventional requisites of the people who played the game centuries ago and that the inclusion of any moral dimensions into a system whose purposes are physical development and entertainment is, on the face of it, meaningless.

*

The world's most-watched sport lasts for roughly 90 minutes each time it is played between any two teams, has 11 players per team, and is very simple to understand given how it is nowhere close to being as macroscopically multidimensional as cricket is, although an emphasis on individual skills and talent have often made it an entertaining experience. The constant engagement of a whole team with the other team in its entirety, together with simplistic framework within which the game in its modern form functions, presents fewer opportunities for the cost of a mistake to be redeemed quickly or, for that matter, frequently. An important corollary of this argument is that, during a game of cricket, victory or defeat can be pinned on one man or a particular phase of the game, whereas in football, the same is not true: by way of providing for constant (or, at least, almost constant) engagement, the actions of each player depend on the actions of a few players at all points of time (except, of course, during a penalty shoot-out).

*

What do cricket and heavy metal music have in common? They are each a modality of group activity, one physical and one aesthetic, whose quality of performance has improved greatly since industrialization, and is even still dependent on industrial standards and how frequently they are not met. While the same can be said of football, it must be noted that, in the case of cricket, the improvement has been drastic and has also allowed cricketers to focus on the game instead of concerning themselves with issues of safety—concerns that have since been addressed against a threat of sanctions by said standards.

*

Did the Englishman really think he had infused civility into a sport simply by reducing physical contact with other players, requiring the wearing of full-sleeved clothing, and having stationary umpires arbiter disputes? If so, he will surely regret that he provided no other occupation for the mouth.

The metaphysics of cricket

Watching cricket is such joy. It's a strange sort of team-play that the game necessitates, first in pairs by batsmen who score the runs and then as a unit of 11 men who attempt to defend their score by reinforcing the assaults of a series of bowlers in the form of a fielding unit. Unlike a game of football—whose example I invoke simply because it is the world's most watched sport—a game of cricket presents a theoretical number of infinite opportunities for an underdog to turn a losing game into a thumping victory. The gambit of procedures and regulations that sustain the adequation of each of the contending teams is necessitated by such numbers of chances, which are in turn actuated by how the game is, across any format, multi-faceted.

*

There have been many accusations directed toward the governing council (ICC) for letting what was once called a "gentleman's game" evolve to include sledging and 'not walking' as only issues of ambiguous morality and for not enforcing sterner measures against them. However, I believe that any civility that the game was envisioned to hold was intended only to address the social conventional requisites of the people who played the game centuries ago and that the inclusion of any moral dimensions into a system whose purposes are physical development and entertainment is, on the face of it, meaningless.

*

The world's most-watched sport lasts for roughly 90 minutes each time it is played between any two teams, has 11 players per team, and is very simple to understand given how it is nowhere close to being as macroscopically multidimensional as cricket is, although an emphasis on individual skills and talent have often made it an entertaining experience. The constant engagement of a whole team with the other team in its entirety, together with simplistic framework within which the game in its modern form functions, presents fewer opportunities for the cost of a mistake to be redeemed quickly or, for that matter, frequently. An important corollary of this argument is that, during a game of cricket, victory or defeat can be pinned on one man or a particular phase of the game, whereas in football, the same is not true: by way of providing for constant (or, at least, almost constant) engagement, the actions of each player depend on the actions of a few players at all points of time (except, of course, during a penalty shoot-out).

*

What do cricket and heavy metal music have in common? They are each a modality of group activity, one physical and one aesthetic, whose quality of performance has improved greatly since industrialization, and is even still dependent on industrial standards and how frequently they are not met. While the same can be said of football, it must be noted that, in the case of cricket, the improvement has been drastic and has also allowed cricketers to focus on the game instead of concerning themselves with issues of safety—concerns that have since been addressed against a threat of sanctions by said standards.

*

Did the Englishman really think he had infused civility into a sport simply by reducing physical contact with other players, requiring the wearing of full-sleeved clothing, and having stationary umpires arbiter disputes? If so, he will surely regret that he provided no other occupation for the mouth.

A tribute to family

My grandmother's cousin today noon arrived along with her two daughters and their two sons (I don't know whose child was who and, frankly, couldn't care less). As has always been the case, excursions to a relative house must mandatorily involve a hired drive, preferably a fancy SUV (Toyota, if you please) that has space for eight but, for their sake, will and should carry only five. Petrol, you see, is a commodity whose price affects only their husbands or, for that matter, that insolent bitch of a house-maid who keeps clamouring for a pay hike.

My grandfather has been a brisk man all his life—industrious is a fitting word—and in the time of his retirement, it is only his greatest sorrow that anyone who pays his wife a visit must announce themselves by ringing the calling-bell four times just as he closes his eyes for a short nap. Why four times? Because it's so much fun listening to the muted sonorous "ding" from on the other side of the door.

The next habit on this list of must-preserve traditions is that of treating everyone else's property as public property; after all, there is no necessity to address it anyhow else when the government buses smell strangely of all the odours of humanity, is there? Pyols are pushed up against the wall, mats, pillows and blankets are heaved off of it and unfurled on the ground to seat themselves on it, only to complain of backaches ten minutes after and climb back up on the bed, grumbling something about a missing blanket.

As grandma leaves for the kitchen to make coffee for six people, she knows that she is going to draw some ire behind her back for getting the amounts of sugar wrong for each individual serving. Still, she makes coffee because these people did promise to her, a fine day not some three years from now, a trip to some obscure temple; the fear of god is the flame that boils the milk, I believe.

What is it with the children of middle-class faimlies in India who, upon having spotted an air-conditioner, must needs operate it for the purchase of their invaluable silence for the next... two minutes? On. Off. On. Off. I and grandpa look on. The bills! Rs. 0. The bills! Rs. 0, or that's what I think he sees. I only couldn't believe his mother was laughing with him at how the lights were being turned on and off.

Doors are slam shut, the warning in the slow creak of the hinges being thrown to the winds, as the dames gather for a commendable session of gossiping, as is due the dutiful housewife who has been showered with enough money by an unsuspecting gem of a husband—picked as he was based on his father's choice of shoes that afternoon—and then chaperoned for evenings after evenings to movie theaters, music shows, and shopping sprees. I say, cry havoc and let loose the "radical" feminists; I'd like to see what brand of egalitarianism theirs is!

100 chapathis and four bowls of tomato chutney later, they, the guzzling and gorging duly done on the fortunes of those whose benefaction must never waver because—hey!—they're family, dash all my hopes that they would leave; would more could they need? Food they have received, drink they have received, talk they have received; did they not have all of our afternoon's peace? Unfortunately, then, the cousin produced two tickets to some movie for the evening: in the cataract-infested eyes of my grandmother, that was two tickets for a visit in the future by the same dollops of humanity that, in all probability, had always seen it only as a deal.

"Fredo, you're my older brother, and I love you. But don't ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever."

Michael Corleone