“Revolutions in information and communication technologies have always been based on small findings in solid state physics” quips Dr. G. Baskaran, firmly establishing both the place and scope of technology. Affiliated with the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada, Dr. Baskaran is a renowned theoretical physicist. He recently delivered a short lecture at the Asian College of Journalism, speaking on everything from the role of science and the ongoing battle to explain super-luminary neutrinos to the future of science.
His statement couldn’t have come at a better time to remind the world of the necessity of science – and its techniques that we call technology. In the face of looming budget cuts in the USA and Europe, politicians and policy-makers have been raising serious questions about the necessity of everything from privately-owned small research labs to proposed upgrades to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.
The evolution of science and technology has been associated with greater unity amongst peoples, Dr. Baskaran said, and better health, wealth, education and opportunities to preserve our culture. “There is some responsibility also”, he adds with a confidence mature with experience.
With likely the greatest ICT revolution at its peak, his words suggest that the technology fuelling it is also maturing in the sense of its acceptance and social penetration. Perhaps it is time for the world to get on the wagon, increase its investments in R&D, and start saving up. The future it seems can stand only to gain because historical ties are snapping in the face of a rupture that is allowing previously-lagging nations like India and China give past-leader USA a run for its money. Increased capitalist traction in the form of tablet computers and smartphones should be thanked for this.
Perhaps the best example of such an opportunity is the increasing feasibility of multi-state-owned research laboratories. The pioneer in this regard is CERN, which was funded and built by 12 countries in 1954, a number that has increased to 20 since, and currently receives funding from 69 countries worldwide. Next in line are the soon-to-come International Linear Collider (ILC) quartered in Japan and the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) in France, as brought to light by Dr. Baskaran.
Such projects ease the burden on countries that wish they had the data from experiments but can’t provide the land to build the lab in the first place. In the case of CERN, the land belongs to two countries, the running costs to 69 nations, the responsibility to more than 7,300 physicists and engineers, and the experimental data to 6.6 billion people. Such overwhelming benefits require only a distributed investment model and cross-border trust to encash it. Alas, the last factor is the most impeding.
Consider the discovery of the super-luminary muon neutrinos detected at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy on September 23. In the absence of a unifying agency, the data would have been consumed by Italian researchers alone, keeping the world at bay for howsoever long it took to verify the results and get them published.
Now, a Puerto Rican or a Chilean has as much chance of explaining the phenomenon as does a Pakistani or Indian scientist. In fact, not only does the entire scientific community benefit by the sharing, but the chances of discovering something that will define the next big revolution are also increased.
(When asked about the strange occurrence, Dr. Baskaran asserted that owing to the small mass and low interactivity of the neutrinos, the existing energy generation technologies would not change as much our perceptions of the Universe. That, in turn, he said, will present new possibilities to produce more energy.)
A persisting sign of hope for India is its assistance with the construction of superconducting magnets at the LHC that even now are energizing beams of protons, and its significant contribution to the establishment of ITER. Further, Dr. Baskaran also revealed the news of a proposed Indian Neutrino Observatory (INO) at Theni, to be run by the government of India.
Alright, enough of taking comfort from the successes of the present; where are we headed? What does the future of science look like? The Tevatron has been closed, the baton has been passed to Europe to continue to look for the Higgs boson, the INO is under construction, and scientific representation is on the up. What about nanotechnology? It’s common knowledge that the Indians didn’t pay sufficient heed to Mr. Feynman. Is there still some space at the bottom?
We wouldn’t know, or, as Dr. Baskaran says, “There is nanomoney being spent on nanotechnology.” Employing India’s rise as an important centre for cheap but good medical care, he points out the important sectors our industries can capitalize on if it only took nanotech to the common man, akin to Gandhi’s talisman. There’s drug delivery, magnetic-resonance imaging, NEMS (nano-electromechanical systems), and, on another note, quantum computing. With continuing failure to look into these sectors, we're not only losing out on the international arena but we are also denying our citizens the opportunities to employment, to knowledge, to possibility.
So, are we again looking at the dearth of planning that has failed to incentivize the study of science in the country? Yes, at least in part. However, initiatives like InSPIRE – which is a 5-week long immersion program that reconnects Indians abroad to Indians at home – bear promise. On a final note, Dr. Baskaran insists that instead of continuing to depend on the government, which in turn depends on internally available resources, it is time to utilize the abundance of intellectual property within the nation and trust in the democracy of science.
Showing posts with label progress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label progress. Show all posts
Monday, 3 October 2011
Clear and present danger
“Revolutions in information and communication technologies have always been based on small findings in solid state physics” quips Dr. G. Baskaran, firmly establishing both the place and scope of technology. Affiliated with the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada, Dr. Baskaran is a renowned theoretical physicist. He recently delivered a short lecture at the Asian College of Journalism, speaking on everything from the role of science and the ongoing battle to explain super-luminary neutrinos to the future of science.
His statement couldn’t have come at a better time to remind the world of the necessity of science – and its techniques that we call technology. In the face of looming budget cuts in the USA and Europe, politicians and policy-makers have been raising serious questions about the necessity of everything from privately-owned small research labs to proposed upgrades to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.
The evolution of science and technology has been associated with greater unity amongst peoples, Dr. Baskaran said, and better health, wealth, education and opportunities to preserve our culture. “There is some responsibility also”, he adds with a confidence mature with experience.
With likely the greatest ICT revolution at its peak, his words suggest that the technology fuelling it is also maturing in the sense of its acceptance and social penetration. Perhaps it is time for the world to get on the wagon, increase its investments in R&D, and start saving up. The future it seems can stand only to gain because historical ties are snapping in the face of a rupture that is allowing previously-lagging nations like India and China give past-leader USA a run for its money. Increased capitalist traction in the form of tablet computers and smartphones should be thanked for this.
Perhaps the best example of such an opportunity is the increasing feasibility of multi-state-owned research laboratories. The pioneer in this regard is CERN, which was funded and built by 12 countries in 1954, a number that has increased to 20 since, and currently receives funding from 69 countries worldwide. Next in line are the soon-to-come International Linear Collider (ILC) quartered in Japan and the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) in France, as brought to light by Dr. Baskaran.
Such projects ease the burden on countries that wish they had the data from experiments but can’t provide the land to build the lab in the first place. In the case of CERN, the land belongs to two countries, the running costs to 69 nations, the responsibility to more than 7,300 physicists and engineers, and the experimental data to 6.6 billion people. Such overwhelming benefits require only a distributed investment model and cross-border trust to encash it. Alas, the last factor is the most impeding.
Consider the discovery of the super-luminary muon neutrinos detected at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy on September 23. In the absence of a unifying agency, the data would have been consumed by Italian researchers alone, keeping the world at bay for howsoever long it took to verify the results and get them published.
Now, a Puerto Rican or a Chilean has as much chance of explaining the phenomenon as does a Pakistani or Indian scientist. In fact, not only does the entire scientific community benefit by the sharing, but the chances of discovering something that will define the next big revolution are also increased.
(When asked about the strange occurrence, Dr. Baskaran asserted that owing to the small mass and low interactivity of the neutrinos, the existing energy generation technologies would not change as much our perceptions of the Universe. That, in turn, he said, will present new possibilities to produce more energy.)
A persisting sign of hope for India is its assistance with the construction of superconducting magnets at the LHC that even now are energizing beams of protons, and its significant contribution to the establishment of ITER. Further, Dr. Baskaran also revealed the news of a proposed Indian Neutrino Observatory (INO) at Theni, to be run by the government of India.
Alright, enough of taking comfort from the successes of the present; where are we headed? What does the future of science look like? The Tevatron has been closed, the baton has been passed to Europe to continue to look for the Higgs boson, the INO is under construction, and scientific representation is on the up. What about nanotechnology? It’s common knowledge that the Indians didn’t pay sufficient heed to Mr. Feynman. Is there still some space at the bottom?
We wouldn’t know, or, as Dr. Baskaran says, “There is nanomoney being spent on nanotechnology.” Employing India’s rise as an important centre for cheap but good medical care, he points out the important sectors our industries can capitalize on if it only took nanotech to the common man, akin to Gandhi’s talisman. There’s drug delivery, magnetic-resonance imaging, NEMS (nano-electromechanical systems), and, on another note, quantum computing. With continuing failure to look into these sectors, we're not only losing out on the international arena but we are also denying our citizens the opportunities to employment, to knowledge, to possibility.
So, are we again looking at the dearth of planning that has failed to incentivize the study of science in the country? Yes, at least in part. However, initiatives like InSPIRE – which is a 5-week long immersion program that reconnects Indians abroad to Indians at home – bear promise. On a final note, Dr. Baskaran insists that instead of continuing to depend on the government, which in turn depends on internally available resources, it is time to utilize the abundance of intellectual property within the nation and trust in the democracy of science.
His statement couldn’t have come at a better time to remind the world of the necessity of science – and its techniques that we call technology. In the face of looming budget cuts in the USA and Europe, politicians and policy-makers have been raising serious questions about the necessity of everything from privately-owned small research labs to proposed upgrades to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.
The evolution of science and technology has been associated with greater unity amongst peoples, Dr. Baskaran said, and better health, wealth, education and opportunities to preserve our culture. “There is some responsibility also”, he adds with a confidence mature with experience.
With likely the greatest ICT revolution at its peak, his words suggest that the technology fuelling it is also maturing in the sense of its acceptance and social penetration. Perhaps it is time for the world to get on the wagon, increase its investments in R&D, and start saving up. The future it seems can stand only to gain because historical ties are snapping in the face of a rupture that is allowing previously-lagging nations like India and China give past-leader USA a run for its money. Increased capitalist traction in the form of tablet computers and smartphones should be thanked for this.
Perhaps the best example of such an opportunity is the increasing feasibility of multi-state-owned research laboratories. The pioneer in this regard is CERN, which was funded and built by 12 countries in 1954, a number that has increased to 20 since, and currently receives funding from 69 countries worldwide. Next in line are the soon-to-come International Linear Collider (ILC) quartered in Japan and the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) in France, as brought to light by Dr. Baskaran.
Such projects ease the burden on countries that wish they had the data from experiments but can’t provide the land to build the lab in the first place. In the case of CERN, the land belongs to two countries, the running costs to 69 nations, the responsibility to more than 7,300 physicists and engineers, and the experimental data to 6.6 billion people. Such overwhelming benefits require only a distributed investment model and cross-border trust to encash it. Alas, the last factor is the most impeding.
Consider the discovery of the super-luminary muon neutrinos detected at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy on September 23. In the absence of a unifying agency, the data would have been consumed by Italian researchers alone, keeping the world at bay for howsoever long it took to verify the results and get them published.
Now, a Puerto Rican or a Chilean has as much chance of explaining the phenomenon as does a Pakistani or Indian scientist. In fact, not only does the entire scientific community benefit by the sharing, but the chances of discovering something that will define the next big revolution are also increased.
(When asked about the strange occurrence, Dr. Baskaran asserted that owing to the small mass and low interactivity of the neutrinos, the existing energy generation technologies would not change as much our perceptions of the Universe. That, in turn, he said, will present new possibilities to produce more energy.)
A persisting sign of hope for India is its assistance with the construction of superconducting magnets at the LHC that even now are energizing beams of protons, and its significant contribution to the establishment of ITER. Further, Dr. Baskaran also revealed the news of a proposed Indian Neutrino Observatory (INO) at Theni, to be run by the government of India.
Alright, enough of taking comfort from the successes of the present; where are we headed? What does the future of science look like? The Tevatron has been closed, the baton has been passed to Europe to continue to look for the Higgs boson, the INO is under construction, and scientific representation is on the up. What about nanotechnology? It’s common knowledge that the Indians didn’t pay sufficient heed to Mr. Feynman. Is there still some space at the bottom?
We wouldn’t know, or, as Dr. Baskaran says, “There is nanomoney being spent on nanotechnology.” Employing India’s rise as an important centre for cheap but good medical care, he points out the important sectors our industries can capitalize on if it only took nanotech to the common man, akin to Gandhi’s talisman. There’s drug delivery, magnetic-resonance imaging, NEMS (nano-electromechanical systems), and, on another note, quantum computing. With continuing failure to look into these sectors, we're not only losing out on the international arena but we are also denying our citizens the opportunities to employment, to knowledge, to possibility.
So, are we again looking at the dearth of planning that has failed to incentivize the study of science in the country? Yes, at least in part. However, initiatives like InSPIRE – which is a 5-week long immersion program that reconnects Indians abroad to Indians at home – bear promise. On a final note, Dr. Baskaran insists that instead of continuing to depend on the government, which in turn depends on internally available resources, it is time to utilize the abundance of intellectual property within the nation and trust in the democracy of science.
Saturday, 23 July 2011
A superficial look at tech's future
In the technological sphere, the end of history will be marked by its death, a definite conclusion that will establish the death of institutions and discrete social units as the technological community will recognize it to be. Connectivity as a measure of development, as a measure of a product's strength irrespective of its classification as a social media service, will dissolve into the greater and increasingly accessible resource called progression.
Before Facebook was launched in 2004, Wikipedia was the most prominent face of social media: what Wikipedia essentially represented was free information sharing (apart from providing a structure for the exercising of a collective social responsibility). After February 2004, the increased penetration of the social media tools into communities resulted in the conspicuous breakage of borders.
Consequently, products that addressed themselves to certain demographics found it harder to utilize the business value of such divisions, finding the way into the future being led not by the social parameters that were unaffected but by those that were indeed affected by social networking. People were confused and wanted to "belong" somewhere, to the same extent (if not more) as they did earlier, and so began to form communities on the web.
However, demand and supply of certain necessities were beginning to become skewed as well because, with increased social participation and representation, access to products began to increase. Therefore, users no longer came together based on what they needed as much as what they thought needed preservation in the face of a loss of context: their interests. In fact, both Facebook and Wikipedia have only magnified or downplayed necessities, and outright changes have not been effected simply because social media has not substituted any other social institution any of whose functions it replicates more efficiently.
Perhaps the most detrimental move at this point would be to attempt to institutionalize processes for the purpose of evaluation or commercial utilization. As technological advancements continue to happen, trying to create borders and limit the pervasion of continuity could very well result in the rigidization of such borders because discrimination at this point of time is bound to result in separately evolving data architectures and platforms, perhaps growing to acquire a significantly different morphology.
Being all complex mechanisms with which to express ourselves in essence, products and services like the smartphones, tablets, blogs, e-mail, and social networks will come to replace existing social mechanisms in their entirety.
For example, with the advent of citizen journalism and the easy access to blogging tools, information distribution systems such as media establishments will have to reorganize everything from their attitude toward journalism to their revenue models constantly. At some point, when broadband penetration has hit a maximum, for example, the fall of the newspaper will begin to accelerate drastically because news will no longer remain a commodity to be purchased but interactions with which are taken for granted.
When the trajectory of connectivity becomes flattened, when there exists the politico-economic gap mandated between those well-connected and those loosely distributed, any product and service created to enhance the experience of "being connected" is going to result in a bloating, resulting in an eventual defiance of its growth trends and a collapse into the primeval form of a newly-birthed successor trend: the direct deployment of the social network.
Beyond which point can it be said that humankind's access to the destructive elements of common technology has begun? I believe that it is our skin - the violation of our biological construction. All that has transpired in the past has been the result of the continued constitution of social institution.
And, for as long as we don't willingly violate that constitution, for as long as we continue to serve our naturally mandated purpose, for as long as we don't interfere with the evolutionary process, I think we ought to be safe from the harmful consequences of letting technology associate with us closely.
Before Facebook was launched in 2004, Wikipedia was the most prominent face of social media: what Wikipedia essentially represented was free information sharing (apart from providing a structure for the exercising of a collective social responsibility). After February 2004, the increased penetration of the social media tools into communities resulted in the conspicuous breakage of borders.
Consequently, products that addressed themselves to certain demographics found it harder to utilize the business value of such divisions, finding the way into the future being led not by the social parameters that were unaffected but by those that were indeed affected by social networking. People were confused and wanted to "belong" somewhere, to the same extent (if not more) as they did earlier, and so began to form communities on the web.
However, demand and supply of certain necessities were beginning to become skewed as well because, with increased social participation and representation, access to products began to increase. Therefore, users no longer came together based on what they needed as much as what they thought needed preservation in the face of a loss of context: their interests. In fact, both Facebook and Wikipedia have only magnified or downplayed necessities, and outright changes have not been effected simply because social media has not substituted any other social institution any of whose functions it replicates more efficiently.
Perhaps the most detrimental move at this point would be to attempt to institutionalize processes for the purpose of evaluation or commercial utilization. As technological advancements continue to happen, trying to create borders and limit the pervasion of continuity could very well result in the rigidization of such borders because discrimination at this point of time is bound to result in separately evolving data architectures and platforms, perhaps growing to acquire a significantly different morphology.
Being all complex mechanisms with which to express ourselves in essence, products and services like the smartphones, tablets, blogs, e-mail, and social networks will come to replace existing social mechanisms in their entirety.
For example, with the advent of citizen journalism and the easy access to blogging tools, information distribution systems such as media establishments will have to reorganize everything from their attitude toward journalism to their revenue models constantly. At some point, when broadband penetration has hit a maximum, for example, the fall of the newspaper will begin to accelerate drastically because news will no longer remain a commodity to be purchased but interactions with which are taken for granted.
When the trajectory of connectivity becomes flattened, when there exists the politico-economic gap mandated between those well-connected and those loosely distributed, any product and service created to enhance the experience of "being connected" is going to result in a bloating, resulting in an eventual defiance of its growth trends and a collapse into the primeval form of a newly-birthed successor trend: the direct deployment of the social network.
*
Beyond which point can it be said that humankind's access to the destructive elements of common technology has begun? I believe that it is our skin - the violation of our biological construction. All that has transpired in the past has been the result of the continued constitution of social institution.
And, for as long as we don't willingly violate that constitution, for as long as we continue to serve our naturally mandated purpose, for as long as we don't interfere with the evolutionary process, I think we ought to be safe from the harmful consequences of letting technology associate with us closely.
A superficial look at tech's future
In the technological sphere, the end of history will be marked by its death, a definite conclusion that will establish the death of institutions and discrete social units as the technological community will recognize it to be. Connectivity as a measure of development, as a measure of a product's strength irrespective of its classification as a social media service, will dissolve into the greater and increasingly accessible resource called progression.
Before Facebook was launched in 2004, Wikipedia was the most prominent face of social media: what Wikipedia essentially represented was free information sharing (apart from providing a structure for the exercising of a collective social responsibility). After February 2004, the increased penetration of the social media tools into communities resulted in the conspicuous breakage of borders.
Consequently, products that addressed themselves to certain demographics found it harder to utilize the business value of such divisions, finding the way into the future being led not by the social parameters that were unaffected but by those that were indeed affected by social networking. People were confused and wanted to "belong" somewhere, to the same extent (if not more) as they did earlier, and so began to form communities on the web.
However, demand and supply of certain necessities were beginning to become skewed as well because, with increased social participation and representation, access to products began to increase. Therefore, users no longer came together based on what they needed as much as what they thought needed preservation in the face of a loss of context: their interests. In fact, both Facebook and Wikipedia have only magnified or downplayed necessities, and outright changes have not been effected simply because social media has not substituted any other social institution any of whose functions it replicates more efficiently.
Perhaps the most detrimental move at this point would be to attempt to institutionalize processes for the purpose of evaluation or commercial utilization. As technological advancements continue to happen, trying to create borders and limit the pervasion of continuity could very well result in the rigidization of such borders because discrimination at this point of time is bound to result in separately evolving data architectures and platforms, perhaps growing to acquire a significantly different morphology.
Being all complex mechanisms with which to express ourselves in essence, products and services like the smartphones, tablets, blogs, e-mail, and social networks will come to replace existing social mechanisms in their entirety.
For example, with the advent of citizen journalism and the easy access to blogging tools, information distribution systems such as media establishments will have to reorganize everything from their attitude toward journalism to their revenue models constantly. At some point, when broadband penetration has hit a maximum, for example, the fall of the newspaper will begin to accelerate drastically because news will no longer remain a commodity to be purchased but interactions with which are taken for granted.
When the trajectory of connectivity becomes flattened, when there exists the politico-economic gap mandated between those well-connected and those loosely distributed, any product and service created to enhance the experience of "being connected" is going to result in a bloating, resulting in an eventual defiance of its growth trends and a collapse into the primeval form of a newly-birthed successor trend: the direct deployment of the social network.
Beyond which point can it be said that humankind's access to the destructive elements of common technology has begun? I believe that it is our skin - the violation of our biological construction. All that has transpired in the past has been the result of the continued constitution of social institution.
And, for as long as we don't willingly violate that constitution, for as long as we continue to serve our naturally mandated purpose, for as long as we don't interfere with the evolutionary process, I think we ought to be safe from the harmful consequences of letting technology associate with us closely.
Before Facebook was launched in 2004, Wikipedia was the most prominent face of social media: what Wikipedia essentially represented was free information sharing (apart from providing a structure for the exercising of a collective social responsibility). After February 2004, the increased penetration of the social media tools into communities resulted in the conspicuous breakage of borders.
Consequently, products that addressed themselves to certain demographics found it harder to utilize the business value of such divisions, finding the way into the future being led not by the social parameters that were unaffected but by those that were indeed affected by social networking. People were confused and wanted to "belong" somewhere, to the same extent (if not more) as they did earlier, and so began to form communities on the web.
However, demand and supply of certain necessities were beginning to become skewed as well because, with increased social participation and representation, access to products began to increase. Therefore, users no longer came together based on what they needed as much as what they thought needed preservation in the face of a loss of context: their interests. In fact, both Facebook and Wikipedia have only magnified or downplayed necessities, and outright changes have not been effected simply because social media has not substituted any other social institution any of whose functions it replicates more efficiently.
Perhaps the most detrimental move at this point would be to attempt to institutionalize processes for the purpose of evaluation or commercial utilization. As technological advancements continue to happen, trying to create borders and limit the pervasion of continuity could very well result in the rigidization of such borders because discrimination at this point of time is bound to result in separately evolving data architectures and platforms, perhaps growing to acquire a significantly different morphology.
Being all complex mechanisms with which to express ourselves in essence, products and services like the smartphones, tablets, blogs, e-mail, and social networks will come to replace existing social mechanisms in their entirety.
For example, with the advent of citizen journalism and the easy access to blogging tools, information distribution systems such as media establishments will have to reorganize everything from their attitude toward journalism to their revenue models constantly. At some point, when broadband penetration has hit a maximum, for example, the fall of the newspaper will begin to accelerate drastically because news will no longer remain a commodity to be purchased but interactions with which are taken for granted.
When the trajectory of connectivity becomes flattened, when there exists the politico-economic gap mandated between those well-connected and those loosely distributed, any product and service created to enhance the experience of "being connected" is going to result in a bloating, resulting in an eventual defiance of its growth trends and a collapse into the primeval form of a newly-birthed successor trend: the direct deployment of the social network.
*
Beyond which point can it be said that humankind's access to the destructive elements of common technology has begun? I believe that it is our skin - the violation of our biological construction. All that has transpired in the past has been the result of the continued constitution of social institution.
And, for as long as we don't willingly violate that constitution, for as long as we continue to serve our naturally mandated purpose, for as long as we don't interfere with the evolutionary process, I think we ought to be safe from the harmful consequences of letting technology associate with us closely.
A superficial look at tech's future
In the technological sphere, the end of history will be marked by its death, a definite conclusion that will establish the death of institutions and discrete social units as the technological community will recognize it to be. Connectivity as a measure of development, as a measure of a product's strength irrespective of its classification as a social media service, will dissolve into the greater and increasingly accessible resource called progression.
Before Facebook was launched in 2004, Wikipedia was the most prominent face of social media: what Wikipedia essentially represented was free information sharing (apart from providing a structure for the exercising of a collective social responsibility). After February 2004, the increased penetration of the social media tools into communities resulted in the conspicuous breakage of borders.
Consequently, products that addressed themselves to certain demographics found it harder to utilize the business value of such divisions, finding the way into the future being led not by the social parameters that were unaffected but by those that were indeed affected by social networking. People were confused and wanted to "belong" somewhere, to the same extent (if not more) as they did earlier, and so began to form communities on the web.
However, demand and supply of certain necessities were beginning to become skewed as well because, with increased social participation and representation, access to products began to increase. Therefore, users no longer came together based on what they needed as much as what they thought needed preservation in the face of a loss of context: their interests. In fact, both Facebook and Wikipedia have only magnified or downplayed necessities, and outright changes have not been effected simply because social media has not substituted any other social institution any of whose functions it replicates more efficiently.
Perhaps the most detrimental move at this point would be to attempt to institutionalize processes for the purpose of evaluation or commercial utilization. As technological advancements continue to happen, trying to create borders and limit the pervasion of continuity could very well result in the rigidization of such borders because discrimination at this point of time is bound to result in separately evolving data architectures and platforms, perhaps growing to acquire a significantly different morphology.
Being all complex mechanisms with which to express ourselves in essence, products and services like the smartphones, tablets, blogs, e-mail, and social networks will come to replace existing social mechanisms in their entirety.
For example, with the advent of citizen journalism and the easy access to blogging tools, information distribution systems such as media establishments will have to reorganize everything from their attitude toward journalism to their revenue models constantly. At some point, when broadband penetration has hit a maximum, for example, the fall of the newspaper will begin to accelerate drastically because news will no longer remain a commodity to be purchased but interactions with which are taken for granted.
When the trajectory of connectivity becomes flattened, when there exists the politico-economic gap mandated between those well-connected and those loosely distributed, any product and service created to enhance the experience of "being connected" is going to result in a bloating, resulting in an eventual defiance of its growth trends and a collapse into the primeval form of a newly-birthed successor trend: the direct deployment of the social network.
Beyond which point can it be said that humankind's access to the destructive elements of common technology has begun? I believe that it is our skin - the violation of our biological construction. All that has transpired in the past has been the result of the continued constitution of social institution.
And, for as long as we don't willingly violate that constitution, for as long as we continue to serve our naturally mandated purpose, for as long as we don't interfere with the evolutionary process, I think we ought to be safe from the harmful consequences of letting technology associate with us closely.
Before Facebook was launched in 2004, Wikipedia was the most prominent face of social media: what Wikipedia essentially represented was free information sharing (apart from providing a structure for the exercising of a collective social responsibility). After February 2004, the increased penetration of the social media tools into communities resulted in the conspicuous breakage of borders.
Consequently, products that addressed themselves to certain demographics found it harder to utilize the business value of such divisions, finding the way into the future being led not by the social parameters that were unaffected but by those that were indeed affected by social networking. People were confused and wanted to "belong" somewhere, to the same extent (if not more) as they did earlier, and so began to form communities on the web.
However, demand and supply of certain necessities were beginning to become skewed as well because, with increased social participation and representation, access to products began to increase. Therefore, users no longer came together based on what they needed as much as what they thought needed preservation in the face of a loss of context: their interests. In fact, both Facebook and Wikipedia have only magnified or downplayed necessities, and outright changes have not been effected simply because social media has not substituted any other social institution any of whose functions it replicates more efficiently.
Perhaps the most detrimental move at this point would be to attempt to institutionalize processes for the purpose of evaluation or commercial utilization. As technological advancements continue to happen, trying to create borders and limit the pervasion of continuity could very well result in the rigidization of such borders because discrimination at this point of time is bound to result in separately evolving data architectures and platforms, perhaps growing to acquire a significantly different morphology.
Being all complex mechanisms with which to express ourselves in essence, products and services like the smartphones, tablets, blogs, e-mail, and social networks will come to replace existing social mechanisms in their entirety.
For example, with the advent of citizen journalism and the easy access to blogging tools, information distribution systems such as media establishments will have to reorganize everything from their attitude toward journalism to their revenue models constantly. At some point, when broadband penetration has hit a maximum, for example, the fall of the newspaper will begin to accelerate drastically because news will no longer remain a commodity to be purchased but interactions with which are taken for granted.
When the trajectory of connectivity becomes flattened, when there exists the politico-economic gap mandated between those well-connected and those loosely distributed, any product and service created to enhance the experience of "being connected" is going to result in a bloating, resulting in an eventual defiance of its growth trends and a collapse into the primeval form of a newly-birthed successor trend: the direct deployment of the social network.
*
Beyond which point can it be said that humankind's access to the destructive elements of common technology has begun? I believe that it is our skin - the violation of our biological construction. All that has transpired in the past has been the result of the continued constitution of social institution.
And, for as long as we don't willingly violate that constitution, for as long as we continue to serve our naturally mandated purpose, for as long as we don't interfere with the evolutionary process, I think we ought to be safe from the harmful consequences of letting technology associate with us closely.
Monday, 4 July 2011
The function of a "unit cell" in the perception lattice
Old post, now archived thus.
--
Beginning from the quantification of perception, we see, hear and feel the objects around us. We understand animation, we derive motion, we negotiate shapes, and we respond to changes. There is nothing to philosophy if only for our ability to become opinionated and a sense of good and bad, whence we also derive judgment and the skills of decision-making. Just as we have left and right to orient us in the physical realm, we have problems and solutions to orient us in the mental realm.
A problem is perceived in its deviation from normality, and in the exposition of abnormality to alert us to one change in particular and in even greater specificity, its incompatibility with normality as we see it. Problems can arise in many forms - as many as we have come to perceive. It is the solution we come to, the one particular decision to alter things as they are and to set them in positions that would resemble in positions they were. We try to reinstate normality as it should be, devoid of anything erroneous, error-prone or error-causing and greatly limitable by one's own actions as they will be.
While walking on a straight road, the need to perceive a change in direction is responded to by taking a perpendicular turn at the most. The sense of left and right, henceforth, seem to more pronounced owing to the presence of an original path that now takes up the first slot in the history of the journey. While travelling on a straight road, without having to take any turns at any points of space and time, the journey consisted of an abode and destination separated by a distance consisting solely of linear displacements; in other words, there was a problem, and there was only one feasible solution.
But once you have taken a turn, say to the right, then you have an angularity associated with your journey: you have reoriented yourself, and analogously, you have altered your direction in favour of a new solution to the same problem. The presence of an original plays an important role in that it gives rise to comparative decision-making, and a variety of opinions with significant variations between them.
The traversal of a straight road gives rise to no such notions because of its inherent inability to deliver comparability. And this is where a theory of nothing, which is only a set of some questions that seem to answer themselves at first, is born. Man’s natural need to quantify the objects, changes and adaptations around him is only understandable. Only with quantification comes perception. This is because, at the most fundamental of levels, the changes around us are used to keep track of time. When an object moves from point A to point B, it marks a change of position and gives rise to displacement. Therefore, the quantification of the phenomena around us empowers us with the tool of recollection, which can be put to immense use when we use comparative decision-making.
The same problem may have given rise to multiple solutions, but when a problem with only one possible solution occurs repeatedly, the problem can be filed away as a one-time occurrence and the solutions that were used previously to tackle it can be thought of as multiple and, therefore, employed again. This concept, in its turn, brings us to the breakdown of time into logically similar categories. When you leave your home for work, the morning may be divided as:
By the logical organization of time periods, alternatively ‘time spans’, you find a sense of progress. When the same tasks are performed on a fairly regular basis, the scenario transforms into a routine and the requirement of a logical categorization becomes suppressed by the commoditized grouping of these tasks into blocks characterized by the observation of relatively progressive changes in a parallel walk of life.
For example, when you work at the office, you perform the tasks assigned to you (as conforming to a division of labour). However, the progress is observed in your personal life when you earn money, and in your employer’s business, which seems to want you to work efficiently for it to profit from the collective efficiency. Subsequently, an instance of multiparallelism can be drawn out between all such cases of analogous systems.
In the said cases, quantification has been observed only because it was being looked for; what about when one desires quantification in some other region of perception but is unable to find it? Does that mean that what one perceives is nonexistent? That is absurd because the validity of my perception is then annulled!
In trying to come to terms with change and the relativity of existence itself, we have subconsciously but inevitably generated the need for quantification. But of course, the coexistent fundamentality of the very notion is an excuse enough and has, therefore, qualified itself as a positive sign of progress.
Our understanding of the people and social machinery around us only deepens our faith in the social pedestal upon which we stand, and thereby also increases our commitment to the understanding of other parallel phenomena. So, pre-quantification, we have change, orientation, progress, and some parameters with which we are enabled to measure them. If these parameters were to be absent one at a time, then the ease of quantification becomes reduced, but on the other hand, even the presence of one of these parameters at times becomes a cause for problem. It is the combination of them that may possess any expectations of standing true.
However, when something as abstract as any other fundamental elemental constituent of logic, like logic itself, is subjugated to the detection of such parameters and the establishment of quantified judgment becomes very complicated owing to logically overriding incompatibilities. Therefore, in dealing with such terms with immense applications in reasoning, we have to define the most fundamental of these terms such that those incompatibilities arising out of hierarchal disturbances in the logical structure of reasoning itself are not dealt with.
In other words, we have to define the smallest units of existence which posses the least amount of elemental reasonability and, therefore, can be parallelized to arrive at a logical conclusion to any statement or problem.
--
Beginning from the quantification of perception, we see, hear and feel the objects around us. We understand animation, we derive motion, we negotiate shapes, and we respond to changes. There is nothing to philosophy if only for our ability to become opinionated and a sense of good and bad, whence we also derive judgment and the skills of decision-making. Just as we have left and right to orient us in the physical realm, we have problems and solutions to orient us in the mental realm.
A problem is perceived in its deviation from normality, and in the exposition of abnormality to alert us to one change in particular and in even greater specificity, its incompatibility with normality as we see it. Problems can arise in many forms - as many as we have come to perceive. It is the solution we come to, the one particular decision to alter things as they are and to set them in positions that would resemble in positions they were. We try to reinstate normality as it should be, devoid of anything erroneous, error-prone or error-causing and greatly limitable by one's own actions as they will be.
While walking on a straight road, the need to perceive a change in direction is responded to by taking a perpendicular turn at the most. The sense of left and right, henceforth, seem to more pronounced owing to the presence of an original path that now takes up the first slot in the history of the journey. While travelling on a straight road, without having to take any turns at any points of space and time, the journey consisted of an abode and destination separated by a distance consisting solely of linear displacements; in other words, there was a problem, and there was only one feasible solution.
But once you have taken a turn, say to the right, then you have an angularity associated with your journey: you have reoriented yourself, and analogously, you have altered your direction in favour of a new solution to the same problem. The presence of an original plays an important role in that it gives rise to comparative decision-making, and a variety of opinions with significant variations between them.
The traversal of a straight road gives rise to no such notions because of its inherent inability to deliver comparability. And this is where a theory of nothing, which is only a set of some questions that seem to answer themselves at first, is born. Man’s natural need to quantify the objects, changes and adaptations around him is only understandable. Only with quantification comes perception. This is because, at the most fundamental of levels, the changes around us are used to keep track of time. When an object moves from point A to point B, it marks a change of position and gives rise to displacement. Therefore, the quantification of the phenomena around us empowers us with the tool of recollection, which can be put to immense use when we use comparative decision-making.
The same problem may have given rise to multiple solutions, but when a problem with only one possible solution occurs repeatedly, the problem can be filed away as a one-time occurrence and the solutions that were used previously to tackle it can be thought of as multiple and, therefore, employed again. This concept, in its turn, brings us to the breakdown of time into logically similar categories. When you leave your home for work, the morning may be divided as:
- You at home,
- You while driving, and
- You at work.
By the logical organization of time periods, alternatively ‘time spans’, you find a sense of progress. When the same tasks are performed on a fairly regular basis, the scenario transforms into a routine and the requirement of a logical categorization becomes suppressed by the commoditized grouping of these tasks into blocks characterized by the observation of relatively progressive changes in a parallel walk of life.
For example, when you work at the office, you perform the tasks assigned to you (as conforming to a division of labour). However, the progress is observed in your personal life when you earn money, and in your employer’s business, which seems to want you to work efficiently for it to profit from the collective efficiency. Subsequently, an instance of multiparallelism can be drawn out between all such cases of analogous systems.
In the said cases, quantification has been observed only because it was being looked for; what about when one desires quantification in some other region of perception but is unable to find it? Does that mean that what one perceives is nonexistent? That is absurd because the validity of my perception is then annulled!
In trying to come to terms with change and the relativity of existence itself, we have subconsciously but inevitably generated the need for quantification. But of course, the coexistent fundamentality of the very notion is an excuse enough and has, therefore, qualified itself as a positive sign of progress.
Our understanding of the people and social machinery around us only deepens our faith in the social pedestal upon which we stand, and thereby also increases our commitment to the understanding of other parallel phenomena. So, pre-quantification, we have change, orientation, progress, and some parameters with which we are enabled to measure them. If these parameters were to be absent one at a time, then the ease of quantification becomes reduced, but on the other hand, even the presence of one of these parameters at times becomes a cause for problem. It is the combination of them that may possess any expectations of standing true.
However, when something as abstract as any other fundamental elemental constituent of logic, like logic itself, is subjugated to the detection of such parameters and the establishment of quantified judgment becomes very complicated owing to logically overriding incompatibilities. Therefore, in dealing with such terms with immense applications in reasoning, we have to define the most fundamental of these terms such that those incompatibilities arising out of hierarchal disturbances in the logical structure of reasoning itself are not dealt with.
In other words, we have to define the smallest units of existence which posses the least amount of elemental reasonability and, therefore, can be parallelized to arrive at a logical conclusion to any statement or problem.
The function of a "unit cell" in the perception lattice
Old post, now archived thus.
--
Beginning from the quantification of perception, we see, hear and feel the objects around us. We understand animation, we derive motion, we negotiate shapes, and we respond to changes. There is nothing to philosophy if only for our ability to become opinionated and a sense of good and bad, whence we also derive judgment and the skills of decision-making. Just as we have left and right to orient us in the physical realm, we have problems and solutions to orient us in the mental realm.
A problem is perceived in its deviation from normality, and in the exposition of abnormality to alert us to one change in particular and in even greater specificity, its incompatibility with normality as we see it. Problems can arise in many forms - as many as we have come to perceive. It is the solution we come to, the one particular decision to alter things as they are and to set them in positions that would resemble in positions they were. We try to reinstate normality as it should be, devoid of anything erroneous, error-prone or error-causing and greatly limitable by one's own actions as they will be.
While walking on a straight road, the need to perceive a change in direction is responded to by taking a perpendicular turn at the most. The sense of left and right, henceforth, seem to more pronounced owing to the presence of an original path that now takes up the first slot in the history of the journey. While travelling on a straight road, without having to take any turns at any points of space and time, the journey consisted of an abode and destination separated by a distance consisting solely of linear displacements; in other words, there was a problem, and there was only one feasible solution.
But once you have taken a turn, say to the right, then you have an angularity associated with your journey: you have reoriented yourself, and analogously, you have altered your direction in favour of a new solution to the same problem. The presence of an original plays an important role in that it gives rise to comparative decision-making, and a variety of opinions with significant variations between them.
The traversal of a straight road gives rise to no such notions because of its inherent inability to deliver comparability. And this is where a theory of nothing, which is only a set of some questions that seem to answer themselves at first, is born. Man’s natural need to quantify the objects, changes and adaptations around him is only understandable. Only with quantification comes perception. This is because, at the most fundamental of levels, the changes around us are used to keep track of time. When an object moves from point A to point B, it marks a change of position and gives rise to displacement. Therefore, the quantification of the phenomena around us empowers us with the tool of recollection, which can be put to immense use when we use comparative decision-making.
The same problem may have given rise to multiple solutions, but when a problem with only one possible solution occurs repeatedly, the problem can be filed away as a one-time occurrence and the solutions that were used previously to tackle it can be thought of as multiple and, therefore, employed again. This concept, in its turn, brings us to the breakdown of time into logically similar categories. When you leave your home for work, the morning may be divided as:
By the logical organization of time periods, alternatively ‘time spans’, you find a sense of progress. When the same tasks are performed on a fairly regular basis, the scenario transforms into a routine and the requirement of a logical categorization becomes suppressed by the commoditized grouping of these tasks into blocks characterized by the observation of relatively progressive changes in a parallel walk of life.
For example, when you work at the office, you perform the tasks assigned to you (as conforming to a division of labour). However, the progress is observed in your personal life when you earn money, and in your employer’s business, which seems to want you to work efficiently for it to profit from the collective efficiency. Subsequently, an instance of multiparallelism can be drawn out between all such cases of analogous systems.
In the said cases, quantification has been observed only because it was being looked for; what about when one desires quantification in some other region of perception but is unable to find it? Does that mean that what one perceives is nonexistent? That is absurd because the validity of my perception is then annulled!
In trying to come to terms with change and the relativity of existence itself, we have subconsciously but inevitably generated the need for quantification. But of course, the coexistent fundamentality of the very notion is an excuse enough and has, therefore, qualified itself as a positive sign of progress.
Our understanding of the people and social machinery around us only deepens our faith in the social pedestal upon which we stand, and thereby also increases our commitment to the understanding of other parallel phenomena. So, pre-quantification, we have change, orientation, progress, and some parameters with which we are enabled to measure them. If these parameters were to be absent one at a time, then the ease of quantification becomes reduced, but on the other hand, even the presence of one of these parameters at times becomes a cause for problem. It is the combination of them that may possess any expectations of standing true.
However, when something as abstract as any other fundamental elemental constituent of logic, like logic itself, is subjugated to the detection of such parameters and the establishment of quantified judgment becomes very complicated owing to logically overriding incompatibilities. Therefore, in dealing with such terms with immense applications in reasoning, we have to define the most fundamental of these terms such that those incompatibilities arising out of hierarchal disturbances in the logical structure of reasoning itself are not dealt with.
In other words, we have to define the smallest units of existence which posses the least amount of elemental reasonability and, therefore, can be parallelized to arrive at a logical conclusion to any statement or problem.
--
Beginning from the quantification of perception, we see, hear and feel the objects around us. We understand animation, we derive motion, we negotiate shapes, and we respond to changes. There is nothing to philosophy if only for our ability to become opinionated and a sense of good and bad, whence we also derive judgment and the skills of decision-making. Just as we have left and right to orient us in the physical realm, we have problems and solutions to orient us in the mental realm.
A problem is perceived in its deviation from normality, and in the exposition of abnormality to alert us to one change in particular and in even greater specificity, its incompatibility with normality as we see it. Problems can arise in many forms - as many as we have come to perceive. It is the solution we come to, the one particular decision to alter things as they are and to set them in positions that would resemble in positions they were. We try to reinstate normality as it should be, devoid of anything erroneous, error-prone or error-causing and greatly limitable by one's own actions as they will be.
While walking on a straight road, the need to perceive a change in direction is responded to by taking a perpendicular turn at the most. The sense of left and right, henceforth, seem to more pronounced owing to the presence of an original path that now takes up the first slot in the history of the journey. While travelling on a straight road, without having to take any turns at any points of space and time, the journey consisted of an abode and destination separated by a distance consisting solely of linear displacements; in other words, there was a problem, and there was only one feasible solution.
But once you have taken a turn, say to the right, then you have an angularity associated with your journey: you have reoriented yourself, and analogously, you have altered your direction in favour of a new solution to the same problem. The presence of an original plays an important role in that it gives rise to comparative decision-making, and a variety of opinions with significant variations between them.
The traversal of a straight road gives rise to no such notions because of its inherent inability to deliver comparability. And this is where a theory of nothing, which is only a set of some questions that seem to answer themselves at first, is born. Man’s natural need to quantify the objects, changes and adaptations around him is only understandable. Only with quantification comes perception. This is because, at the most fundamental of levels, the changes around us are used to keep track of time. When an object moves from point A to point B, it marks a change of position and gives rise to displacement. Therefore, the quantification of the phenomena around us empowers us with the tool of recollection, which can be put to immense use when we use comparative decision-making.
The same problem may have given rise to multiple solutions, but when a problem with only one possible solution occurs repeatedly, the problem can be filed away as a one-time occurrence and the solutions that were used previously to tackle it can be thought of as multiple and, therefore, employed again. This concept, in its turn, brings us to the breakdown of time into logically similar categories. When you leave your home for work, the morning may be divided as:
- You at home,
- You while driving, and
- You at work.
By the logical organization of time periods, alternatively ‘time spans’, you find a sense of progress. When the same tasks are performed on a fairly regular basis, the scenario transforms into a routine and the requirement of a logical categorization becomes suppressed by the commoditized grouping of these tasks into blocks characterized by the observation of relatively progressive changes in a parallel walk of life.
For example, when you work at the office, you perform the tasks assigned to you (as conforming to a division of labour). However, the progress is observed in your personal life when you earn money, and in your employer’s business, which seems to want you to work efficiently for it to profit from the collective efficiency. Subsequently, an instance of multiparallelism can be drawn out between all such cases of analogous systems.
In the said cases, quantification has been observed only because it was being looked for; what about when one desires quantification in some other region of perception but is unable to find it? Does that mean that what one perceives is nonexistent? That is absurd because the validity of my perception is then annulled!
In trying to come to terms with change and the relativity of existence itself, we have subconsciously but inevitably generated the need for quantification. But of course, the coexistent fundamentality of the very notion is an excuse enough and has, therefore, qualified itself as a positive sign of progress.
Our understanding of the people and social machinery around us only deepens our faith in the social pedestal upon which we stand, and thereby also increases our commitment to the understanding of other parallel phenomena. So, pre-quantification, we have change, orientation, progress, and some parameters with which we are enabled to measure them. If these parameters were to be absent one at a time, then the ease of quantification becomes reduced, but on the other hand, even the presence of one of these parameters at times becomes a cause for problem. It is the combination of them that may possess any expectations of standing true.
However, when something as abstract as any other fundamental elemental constituent of logic, like logic itself, is subjugated to the detection of such parameters and the establishment of quantified judgment becomes very complicated owing to logically overriding incompatibilities. Therefore, in dealing with such terms with immense applications in reasoning, we have to define the most fundamental of these terms such that those incompatibilities arising out of hierarchal disturbances in the logical structure of reasoning itself are not dealt with.
In other words, we have to define the smallest units of existence which posses the least amount of elemental reasonability and, therefore, can be parallelized to arrive at a logical conclusion to any statement or problem.
The function of a "unit cell" in the perception lattice
Old post, now archived thus.
--
Beginning from the quantification of perception, we see, hear and feel the objects around us. We understand animation, we derive motion, we negotiate shapes, and we respond to changes. There is nothing to philosophy if only for our ability to become opinionated and a sense of good and bad, whence we also derive judgment and the skills of decision-making. Just as we have left and right to orient us in the physical realm, we have problems and solutions to orient us in the mental realm.
A problem is perceived in its deviation from normality, and in the exposition of abnormality to alert us to one change in particular and in even greater specificity, its incompatibility with normality as we see it. Problems can arise in many forms - as many as we have come to perceive. It is the solution we come to, the one particular decision to alter things as they are and to set them in positions that would resemble in positions they were. We try to reinstate normality as it should be, devoid of anything erroneous, error-prone or error-causing and greatly limitable by one's own actions as they will be.
While walking on a straight road, the need to perceive a change in direction is responded to by taking a perpendicular turn at the most. The sense of left and right, henceforth, seem to more pronounced owing to the presence of an original path that now takes up the first slot in the history of the journey. While travelling on a straight road, without having to take any turns at any points of space and time, the journey consisted of an abode and destination separated by a distance consisting solely of linear displacements; in other words, there was a problem, and there was only one feasible solution.
But once you have taken a turn, say to the right, then you have an angularity associated with your journey: you have reoriented yourself, and analogously, you have altered your direction in favour of a new solution to the same problem. The presence of an original plays an important role in that it gives rise to comparative decision-making, and a variety of opinions with significant variations between them.
The traversal of a straight road gives rise to no such notions because of its inherent inability to deliver comparability. And this is where a theory of nothing, which is only a set of some questions that seem to answer themselves at first, is born. Man’s natural need to quantify the objects, changes and adaptations around him is only understandable. Only with quantification comes perception. This is because, at the most fundamental of levels, the changes around us are used to keep track of time. When an object moves from point A to point B, it marks a change of position and gives rise to displacement. Therefore, the quantification of the phenomena around us empowers us with the tool of recollection, which can be put to immense use when we use comparative decision-making.
The same problem may have given rise to multiple solutions, but when a problem with only one possible solution occurs repeatedly, the problem can be filed away as a one-time occurrence and the solutions that were used previously to tackle it can be thought of as multiple and, therefore, employed again. This concept, in its turn, brings us to the breakdown of time into logically similar categories. When you leave your home for work, the morning may be divided as:
By the logical organization of time periods, alternatively ‘time spans’, you find a sense of progress. When the same tasks are performed on a fairly regular basis, the scenario transforms into a routine and the requirement of a logical categorization becomes suppressed by the commoditized grouping of these tasks into blocks characterized by the observation of relatively progressive changes in a parallel walk of life.
For example, when you work at the office, you perform the tasks assigned to you (as conforming to a division of labour). However, the progress is observed in your personal life when you earn money, and in your employer’s business, which seems to want you to work efficiently for it to profit from the collective efficiency. Subsequently, an instance of multiparallelism can be drawn out between all such cases of analogous systems.
In the said cases, quantification has been observed only because it was being looked for; what about when one desires quantification in some other region of perception but is unable to find it? Does that mean that what one perceives is nonexistent? That is absurd because the validity of my perception is then annulled!
In trying to come to terms with change and the relativity of existence itself, we have subconsciously but inevitably generated the need for quantification. But of course, the coexistent fundamentality of the very notion is an excuse enough and has, therefore, qualified itself as a positive sign of progress.
Our understanding of the people and social machinery around us only deepens our faith in the social pedestal upon which we stand, and thereby also increases our commitment to the understanding of other parallel phenomena. So, pre-quantification, we have change, orientation, progress, and some parameters with which we are enabled to measure them. If these parameters were to be absent one at a time, then the ease of quantification becomes reduced, but on the other hand, even the presence of one of these parameters at times becomes a cause for problem. It is the combination of them that may possess any expectations of standing true.
However, when something as abstract as any other fundamental elemental constituent of logic, like logic itself, is subjugated to the detection of such parameters and the establishment of quantified judgment becomes very complicated owing to logically overriding incompatibilities. Therefore, in dealing with such terms with immense applications in reasoning, we have to define the most fundamental of these terms such that those incompatibilities arising out of hierarchal disturbances in the logical structure of reasoning itself are not dealt with.
In other words, we have to define the smallest units of existence which posses the least amount of elemental reasonability and, therefore, can be parallelized to arrive at a logical conclusion to any statement or problem.
--
Beginning from the quantification of perception, we see, hear and feel the objects around us. We understand animation, we derive motion, we negotiate shapes, and we respond to changes. There is nothing to philosophy if only for our ability to become opinionated and a sense of good and bad, whence we also derive judgment and the skills of decision-making. Just as we have left and right to orient us in the physical realm, we have problems and solutions to orient us in the mental realm.
A problem is perceived in its deviation from normality, and in the exposition of abnormality to alert us to one change in particular and in even greater specificity, its incompatibility with normality as we see it. Problems can arise in many forms - as many as we have come to perceive. It is the solution we come to, the one particular decision to alter things as they are and to set them in positions that would resemble in positions they were. We try to reinstate normality as it should be, devoid of anything erroneous, error-prone or error-causing and greatly limitable by one's own actions as they will be.
While walking on a straight road, the need to perceive a change in direction is responded to by taking a perpendicular turn at the most. The sense of left and right, henceforth, seem to more pronounced owing to the presence of an original path that now takes up the first slot in the history of the journey. While travelling on a straight road, without having to take any turns at any points of space and time, the journey consisted of an abode and destination separated by a distance consisting solely of linear displacements; in other words, there was a problem, and there was only one feasible solution.
But once you have taken a turn, say to the right, then you have an angularity associated with your journey: you have reoriented yourself, and analogously, you have altered your direction in favour of a new solution to the same problem. The presence of an original plays an important role in that it gives rise to comparative decision-making, and a variety of opinions with significant variations between them.
The traversal of a straight road gives rise to no such notions because of its inherent inability to deliver comparability. And this is where a theory of nothing, which is only a set of some questions that seem to answer themselves at first, is born. Man’s natural need to quantify the objects, changes and adaptations around him is only understandable. Only with quantification comes perception. This is because, at the most fundamental of levels, the changes around us are used to keep track of time. When an object moves from point A to point B, it marks a change of position and gives rise to displacement. Therefore, the quantification of the phenomena around us empowers us with the tool of recollection, which can be put to immense use when we use comparative decision-making.
The same problem may have given rise to multiple solutions, but when a problem with only one possible solution occurs repeatedly, the problem can be filed away as a one-time occurrence and the solutions that were used previously to tackle it can be thought of as multiple and, therefore, employed again. This concept, in its turn, brings us to the breakdown of time into logically similar categories. When you leave your home for work, the morning may be divided as:
- You at home,
- You while driving, and
- You at work.
By the logical organization of time periods, alternatively ‘time spans’, you find a sense of progress. When the same tasks are performed on a fairly regular basis, the scenario transforms into a routine and the requirement of a logical categorization becomes suppressed by the commoditized grouping of these tasks into blocks characterized by the observation of relatively progressive changes in a parallel walk of life.
For example, when you work at the office, you perform the tasks assigned to you (as conforming to a division of labour). However, the progress is observed in your personal life when you earn money, and in your employer’s business, which seems to want you to work efficiently for it to profit from the collective efficiency. Subsequently, an instance of multiparallelism can be drawn out between all such cases of analogous systems.
In the said cases, quantification has been observed only because it was being looked for; what about when one desires quantification in some other region of perception but is unable to find it? Does that mean that what one perceives is nonexistent? That is absurd because the validity of my perception is then annulled!
In trying to come to terms with change and the relativity of existence itself, we have subconsciously but inevitably generated the need for quantification. But of course, the coexistent fundamentality of the very notion is an excuse enough and has, therefore, qualified itself as a positive sign of progress.
Our understanding of the people and social machinery around us only deepens our faith in the social pedestal upon which we stand, and thereby also increases our commitment to the understanding of other parallel phenomena. So, pre-quantification, we have change, orientation, progress, and some parameters with which we are enabled to measure them. If these parameters were to be absent one at a time, then the ease of quantification becomes reduced, but on the other hand, even the presence of one of these parameters at times becomes a cause for problem. It is the combination of them that may possess any expectations of standing true.
However, when something as abstract as any other fundamental elemental constituent of logic, like logic itself, is subjugated to the detection of such parameters and the establishment of quantified judgment becomes very complicated owing to logically overriding incompatibilities. Therefore, in dealing with such terms with immense applications in reasoning, we have to define the most fundamental of these terms such that those incompatibilities arising out of hierarchal disturbances in the logical structure of reasoning itself are not dealt with.
In other words, we have to define the smallest units of existence which posses the least amount of elemental reasonability and, therefore, can be parallelized to arrive at a logical conclusion to any statement or problem.
Saturday, 4 June 2011
The victorious mistaking
Nobody will ever let you know when you ask the reasons why...
They just tell you that you're on your own till your head all full of lies!
- Sabbath Bloody Sabbath
Hindsight is a powerful tool when it comes to adjudicating one's personal worth. When I look back now, standing smack in the middle of 2011, I can finally see the last decade for what it's really been: living out each moment since 2001 has been a tiring task, speckled generously with situations that have driven me to want to kill myself. However, the vision from 2011 is breathtaking. I feel like a long river that has wound its course through a whole mountain range and now, taking a moment of pause, sees the Grand Canyon in its erosive wake.
My school years leading up to graduation from high school were all bland: the person they birthed at the end of 2006 was not even half-formed and had no ambitions that he was willing to really fight for (mistake #1). Then, the next few months in the same year crystallized that half-formed being into an adult who, without tools, was expected to fight. Looking back at that moment through these hindsight-lenses, I see a lot of things I now regret doing (or not doing).
Then came college. If you've read Viktor E. Frankl's 'Man's Search for Meaning', you'll known what I mean when I say college is where the indecisive soul's journey ends and a period of enjoyable decision-making begins, a period within which all the old socks are not discarded but simple washed, repainted and worn - like food porn (which is not what you think it is)! It's a life from which we emerge reoriented and nothing else.
During all those hours I spent in my various rooms (318-B, C-226 and B-530) writing and editing and proofreading and reading, I've received so much praise as well as criticism for different things. If I hadn't shown up in class, the first thing I was told was I spent too much time in my room doing counterproductive stuff. If I did show up in class (as analogous to scoring high in a test, etc.), I was told I was seeing the errors in my ways too late. I've since realized people say all kinds of things.
Sure, it sounds hollow to you, but you'll someday get to the point in life when you seem within reach of your dreams and, right then, you'll realize all that's mattered till then is the yardstick by which you measured yourself. It stands the test for all kinds of things. Don't tell me you're not laughing at your past-you who refused to carry an umbrella to school just because you thought it was a measure of your "coolness". Peer pressure is one thing, but like Eleanor Roosevelt says, "no one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
Life is a lesson...
You learn it when you're through.
- Take A Look Around
If you say so, but there's a supple silver lining to that saying. Not all of life's lessons are applicable all the time, so I divided my life into certain periods: learning, dreaming, preparing, living, and thinking. When I'm "dreaming", I find the lessons from the period of "learning" applicable; when I'm "preparing", I find the lessons form the period of "dreaming" applicable; so forth. Another thing is that I've been a considerably different person for the first three phases (I'd like to think I'm nearing the beginning of "living"). While any other person would find that unsettling, I don't.
What I choose to take from that observation is that, in each period, I've committed enough mistakes to change myself by that much. I don't mind mistakes - I like committing them; the hatred of them sinks in when I've been deliberate somewhere in the process. The thrill of the uphill charge after each mistake is unmistakable, and the rewarding victory is that and that alone. Even if I don't clear the interview I have on Monday to join a niche journalism institute in Madras, I'm going to move on so fast my parents are going to think my moral compass is broken.
Nothing is going to stop me from writing. Nothing is going to stop me from thinking. I'm still going to annoy my friends in argument, I'm still going to bring up numbers that conjure frowns on local MLAs, I'm still going to possess and preserve the ambition in me to, one day, be called one of the greatest writers of this century. The yardstick I measure myself with has been, is and will always be the man I was yesterday. That way, I know I'm only going up.
Thought is free.
- The Tempest; Act III, scene 2
The victorious mistaking
Nobody will ever let you know when you ask the reasons why...
They just tell you that you're on your own till your head all full of lies!
- Sabbath Bloody Sabbath
Hindsight is a powerful tool when it comes to adjudicating one's personal worth. When I look back now, standing smack in the middle of 2011, I can finally see the last decade for what it's really been: living out each moment since 2001 has been a tiring task, speckled generously with situations that have driven me to want to kill myself. However, the vision from 2011 is breathtaking. I feel like a long river that has wound its course through a whole mountain range and now, taking a moment of pause, sees the Grand Canyon in its erosive wake.
My school years leading up to graduation from high school were all bland: the person they birthed at the end of 2006 was not even half-formed and had no ambitions that he was willing to really fight for (mistake #1). Then, the next few months in the same year crystallized that half-formed being into an adult who, without tools, was expected to fight. Looking back at that moment through these hindsight-lenses, I see a lot of things I now regret doing (or not doing).
Then came college. If you've read Viktor E. Frankl's 'Man's Search for Meaning', you'll known what I mean when I say college is where the indecisive soul's journey ends and a period of enjoyable decision-making begins, a period within which all the old socks are not discarded but simple washed, repainted and worn - like food porn (which is not what you think it is)! It's a life from which we emerge reoriented and nothing else.
During all those hours I spent in my various rooms (318-B, C-226 and B-530) writing and editing and proofreading and reading, I've received so much praise as well as criticism for different things. If I hadn't shown up in class, the first thing I was told was I spent too much time in my room doing counterproductive stuff. If I did show up in class (as analogous to scoring high in a test, etc.), I was told I was seeing the errors in my ways too late. I've since realized people say all kinds of things.
Sure, it sounds hollow to you, but you'll someday get to the point in life when you seem within reach of your dreams and, right then, you'll realize all that's mattered till then is the yardstick by which you measured yourself. It stands the test for all kinds of things. Don't tell me you're not laughing at your past-you who refused to carry an umbrella to school just because you thought it was a measure of your "coolness". Peer pressure is one thing, but like Eleanor Roosevelt says, "no one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
Life is a lesson...
You learn it when you're through.
- Take A Look Around
If you say so, but there's a supple silver lining to that saying. Not all of life's lessons are applicable all the time, so I divided my life into certain periods: learning, dreaming, preparing, living, and thinking. When I'm "dreaming", I find the lessons from the period of "learning" applicable; when I'm "preparing", I find the lessons form the period of "dreaming" applicable; so forth. Another thing is that I've been a considerably different person for the first three phases (I'd like to think I'm nearing the beginning of "living"). While any other person would find that unsettling, I don't.
What I choose to take from that observation is that, in each period, I've committed enough mistakes to change myself by that much. I don't mind mistakes - I like committing them; the hatred of them sinks in when I've been deliberate somewhere in the process. The thrill of the uphill charge after each mistake is unmistakable, and the rewarding victory is that and that alone. Even if I don't clear the interview I have on Monday to join a niche journalism institute in Madras, I'm going to move on so fast my parents are going to think my moral compass is broken.
Nothing is going to stop me from writing. Nothing is going to stop me from thinking. I'm still going to annoy my friends in argument, I'm still going to bring up numbers that conjure frowns on local MLAs, I'm still going to possess and preserve the ambition in me to, one day, be called one of the greatest writers of this century. The yardstick I measure myself with has been, is and will always be the man I was yesterday. That way, I know I'm only going up.
Thought is free.
- The Tempest; Act III, scene 2
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Writing statistics
Cumulative‡
Total number of words: 72,925
Average no. of words per week: 5419.6*
Targeted no. of words per week: 2000
Average no. of words/sentence (WPS): 23.87
Targeted WPS: 17
Average fog index (FI): 14.97
Targeted FI: 12
Categorical†
Non-fiction
Average WPS: 27.66
Average FI: 18.71
Fiction
Average WPS: 25.28
Average FI: 14.33
Poetry
Average WPS: 19.67
Average FI: 10.48
‡Aggregated since Monday, January 31, 2011
*Excludes the current week (from Monday, May 2, 2011)
†Data available from Thursday, March 10, 2011
Total number of words: 72,925
Average no. of words per week: 5419.6*
Targeted no. of words per week: 2000
Average no. of words/sentence (WPS): 23.87
Targeted WPS: 17
Average fog index (FI): 14.97
Targeted FI: 12
Categorical†
Non-fiction
Average WPS: 27.66
Average FI: 18.71
Fiction
Average WPS: 25.28
Average FI: 14.33
Poetry
Average WPS: 19.67
Average FI: 10.48
‡Aggregated since Monday, January 31, 2011
*Excludes the current week (from Monday, May 2, 2011)
†Data available from Thursday, March 10, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)