Saying Loudly

Usefulness of Genetic Horoscope - III

2013-05-14T13:07:00.000+05:30

Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie has undergone a double mastectomy to reduce her chances of getting breast cancer.
:
She said her doctors estimated she had an 87% risk of breast cancer and a 50% risk of ovarian cancer. "I decided to be proactive and to minimise the risk as much I could," she wrote.
:

"but the truth is I carry a 'faulty' gene, BRCA1, which sharply increases my risk of developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer"

:

Her chances of developing breast cancer have now dropped from 87% to under 5%, she said.

Via BBC News

Random Thoughts - Love_Lust

2013-05-11T01:35:00.001+05:30

Love, as we know today was invented by the English(along with ambition and happiness) and in particular by Shakespeare. So says this article. I don't have much idea and I haven't read Shakespeare in original. But according to the author;

Today, of course, this most powerful feeling is familiar everywhere within the so-called "Western" civilization (which includes all societies based on monotheistic religion, i.e., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and it has penetrated into other civilizations as well

That certainly carries some weight in Indian context as one can observe that the passionate love songs in Hindi movies are the works of poets with Islamic background (including Atheists and Hindus with education in Urdu).

Anyway, non-articulation of this emotion need not mean non-existence of it in other societies (but for practical purposes could be as good as non-existent) or in England prior to the sixteenth century.

The characteristic of true love that Shakespeare stresses in this sonnet is its unchanging nature: it is one-in-a-lifetime passion. Admit it: this is what we all want, however difficult it proves for most of us to find. Those who argue that our desires are genetically, and therefore, evolutionarily determined, should consider that; it is far more likely that we share our genetic endowment with the clearly polygamous apes, than with species genetically remote from us, such as wolves, penguins, or swans, who mate for life. Yet, we long for a monogamous lifetime relationship.

I guess here the author confuses love with lust. However, I believe even a person in love can fall in love again with some other person simultaneously. Didn't Levin fall in love with Anna when he was still passionately in love with Kitty? In the case of unfaithfulness in lust, when a person lusts after more than one person, it requires action from his/her part to truly become unfaithful. However, unfaithful love is a natural phenomenon as it doesn't require any physical contact. It's easier to become unfaithful in love than in lust. There exists freewill in lust but not in love.

But I believe one-in-a-lifetime passion isn't supported by the "scientific" studies too. I guess it's been measured that love lasts only for one and half years and after that one needs regular sex or some mutual work to keep that oxytocin running in the relationship. But of course, the narrative could be changed if it's always in love and not always in love with one person.

Then the author ends with this absolute mystical flourish. I suppose the field of psychology badly needs scientific validity just like psychiatry so as not to get into these unverifiable.

In short, love makes it possible for every one of us to find one’s proper place in the world and to define oneself. It leads one to the discovery of one’s true identity (we often say that we find true understanding in the loved one, someone who really understands us): one’s identity, one’s true self is found in another person, in what he or she sees in one. This other person, immediately recognized (thus true love is love at first sight), then is recognized as one’s destiny, the One, and finding love at once also becomes self-realization, giving meaning to life as a whole.

The way I see it the feelings of love and lust could be felt from your early childhood. The passion could only go up when one reaches his/her puberty but I believe one can distinguish between love and lust even before that. Also, even after coming of age, the raging hormones don't adulterate the feeling of love. However, since the society around doesn't articulate it for you, probably, one could be confused about those feelings and could think it's another form of lust. I'm not sure the idea of understanding or identity influencing or coming into picture in any of these.

Random Thoughts - Astrology

2013-05-07T21:49:00.000+05:30

In my previous post I argued that negative predictions would impact psychologically and that might be responsible for some of the "successes" of those predictions.

I found my thoughts echoed by a commentator at P Z Myers's blog.

Identities - IV

2013-05-05T22:14:00.000+05:30

The other day, I was talking to my Chinese colleague in Shanghai. The topic went to the caste system. I sort of felt they had some kind of idealized notions about it. They were guessing the castes of some of the Indians higher in hierarchy in the company.

That set me thinking the way we view other societies. I suppose people in India growing up reading Jane Austen would have a very idealized and romantic notion about the English classes.

I guess the danger of reading with a neutral angle is we lose focus how these societies could actually suppress a big chunk of population. A woman idealizing chivalrous patriarchal society, A Dravidian idealizing the class English society or a southern Chinese idealizing the caste Indian society are some of the dangerous of uncritical reading of history.

Agriculture in South India - 2a

2013-03-12T16:34:00.001+05:30

In my previous post on this topic I discussed the non-Indian vegetables in our food that appeared in the last five hundred years. The list I found was included in an article written by a Malayali Christian (which I have lost). One of the contentious items in the list was 'gourds'. From my other readings, I thought they were mainly Indian.

Now a new study[1] says all plants belonging to the family Cucurbitaceae, like cucumbers, melons and pumpkins originated in India (or from the foothills of Himalayas). I'm not clear whether that means all present day species of this family are native to India. Consider the case of pumpkin.

The Kannada name for pumpkin is 'chini kayi'. The etymology of 'chini' is puzzling as far as I am concerned. Since it's also called sweet pumpkin and chini in Hindi means 'sugar', it appears the name was derived from a north Indian name for that squash. But its Hindi name is 'kaddu'. So, from where did this name come? Why did Kannadigas name it using a Hindi adjective? Is this a legacy of some of the old Prakrit migrations?

I wonder whether 'chini' here actually means 'from China'. The Tamil name is 'parangi kayi'. 'Parangi/Farangi' in Kannada/Tulu means 'foreign/foreigner' (I suppose European). I wonder whether that's an indication of non-native origin of this vegetable.

Ref:
1. Indian Origins of Pumpkins and Cucumbers confirmed

Random Thoughts - Hinduism and Hindutva

2013-03-10T01:24:00.000+05:30

I keep hearing this absurd statement from many people and today I came across the same from a Muslim fundamentalist.

"We are not opposed to Hinduism but are against Hindutva".

Well, I'm against both Hinduism and Hindutva. Hinduism is nothing but a euphemism for the caste system and Hindutva is nothing but a clone of Islam or Christianity(or both). I believe both are dangerous and regressive.

However, Muslim fundamentalists hating only Hindutva makes sense as Hinduism plays into their hands.

For the same reason, I believe more than eliminating the caste system the critical requirement for a country like India is to eliminate all religious identities (and hope that the caste identities also lose their relevance in due course).

Random Thoughts- Affirmative Action

2013-03-04T00:54:00.001+05:30

I know this person for many years now. First time when he sent me a joke against the reservation system, I was stunned. I understand he comes from an Other Backward Caste (the castes eligible for the reservations) and more over is a beneficiary of the system. In fact, my other friends had grumbled that his elder brother was also a beneficiary. Their main grouse was that they were an affluent landholding family with some other business ventures too. The other day, I saw him repeating the act.

I view the affirmative action or the reservation system as a way to improve the cultural capital of the castes who didn't have traditional educational background. I would define the cultural capital as the opportunity to imitate the people with whom you can identify. The way I see it, the son of a, say, sweeper from a privileged caste with an average intelligence has more deterministic determination to succeed than that from a faceless caste with the similar intelligence level even after overlooking influence/nepotism/favouritism factor. I even support financially blind affirmative action as I believe because of the nature of the caste system they have limited worldview and the amount of money doesn't change it. In this respect I don't agree with the 'creamy layer' concept too though the Indian Supreme Court considers it a valid clause.

However, I wonder how many from Dalit and OBC backgrounds understand and appreciate the reason behind the reservation system. I don't remember studying the social and financial impact of the caste system and the untouchability while in school. Maybe the topics are too advanced for primary and high school students. I suppose the pupils who have faced first hand caste discrimination or the pupils who have heard first hand accounts of caste discrimination from their kith and kin can understand it. How about others? Especially the ones from the OBC background?

Before that, do I really need to expect that students should think about the reason behind the affirmative action? Even otherwise, mechanically using the opportunities and reaching certain positions achieves the purpose of creating cultural capital for their castes. But there are other situations. They have to constantly address injustices faced by few privileged individuals. They have to develop thick skin sense of humour in the face of hateful jokes about being non-meritorious.

Again does it matter? They can become defiant for the single reason that they know their caste is not considered number one. Any deep understanding isn't necessary.

Another question is, what percentage of OBCs have benefited from the system. Considering their huge number and limited opportunities, I would guess the beneficiary number could be very small. So, likely, majority wouldn't identify with it anyway.

Another mindset, which could be called corrupt, is, "I don't bother why, but I got benefited; so, who cares?" I suppose these people can even join the fun as they could be least bothered.

But from my interactions with him, I don't see him belonging to that last category. The one important character that defines his personality is his hard core support to the Hindutva cause. If you check the Hindutva crowd from the privileged castes, one thing that defines them is their vulgar hatred against Muslims, Christians, Leftists, Secularists, and the affirmative action. Actually, they get whole-hearted support in the last from the privileged sections of Muslims and Christians too, similar to their confluence of minds in the case of sexism.

Now if you are part of that crowd, what would be your mental state? You feel close to them in your hatred against the Muslims but confused about the affirmative action. I believe this will result in perversion and my friend is a victim of that.

I believe unless OBCs like these who have benefited from the system move away from their caste identity (which means leaving Hindu identity) they are going to pervert the system from within.

Because of this, I would think there should be some literature, explaining the idea behind the affirmative action, for the students from the castes eligible to avail the benefits of the affirmative action, before they apply for the professional courses.

It, of course, doesn't mean that every OBC would agree with the affirmative action or would find it rationally acceptable after s/he has benefited from it(I read about a famous surgeon, I guess a Tamil Muslim, who himself was a beneficiary but talked against the system) . But what we need is articulation against the system out of their own thoughts than merely forwarding the malicious jokes from their privileged friends. The way I see it, the ignorant perversion of OBCs will hurt them whereas the same from their privileged counterparts is irrelevant.

Idea of a Nation - iv_a

2013-02-28T23:52:00.000+05:30

There are quite a few independence movements that are gaining momentum in Europe. The recent one being Catalonia. My understanding is that they want to secede from Spain but want to become part of European Union. I believe many Scottish nationalists and Basque nationalists have the similar goal.

In my opinion (which I expressed here or somewhere else), nations with two or three linguistic/ethnic identities shouldn't exist. These nations invariably try to impose the identity of a dominant group on other smaller groups. So, a natural nation could only be a region with no dominant identity or even if there is a dominant identity it doesn't make up the majority. In this sense, India and Europe are natural nations.

I suppose, for humanity's sake, it's better for Sri Lanka to join Indian union and Turkey to join European union. This is the only way the humiliations and suppression of Tamils and Kurds in those regions respectively can be addressed.

Of course, the authority to grant new states should only rest on the central government in these unions.

Gandhi, the patron saint of misogynists

2013-01-17T11:49:00.002+05:30

This article, written curiously in a cynical street language, comes up every now and then in forums.

I suppose the claim that Gandhi's legacy is responsible for misogynism in India is preposterous. First of all, his attitude towards women aren't wellknown and second, none of his legacies meant anything in post-independence India. However, his own misogynistic attitude isn't surprising considering the society he was born and brought up. Even then I thought the following claim sounds bit out of character.

Gandhi believed Indian women who were raped lost their value as human beings. He argued that fathers could be justified in killing daughters who had been sexually assaulted for the sake of family and community honour. He moderated his views towards the end of his life. But the damage was done, and the legacy lingers in every present-day Indian press report of a rape victim who commits suicide out of "shame". Gandhi also waged a war against contraceptives, labelling Indian women who used them as whores.

The Gandhi I knew would have said that sexually assaulted females should commit suicide by some grotesque means (true to his Jain philosophy of inwardly directed violence).

Unfortunately, the writer didn't mention what were his moderated views. I suppose just to confirm this point I have to buy and read Rita Banerji's book "Sex and Power". But when I read the introduction, it was a dampener.

As squeamish as India is today about sex, this is also the land where queens once copulated with dead horses at religious ceremonies, where the art of love-making was declared the revelation of the gods and recorded in elaborate detail in the kama sutras and prostitution was a form of sacred offering at temples adorned with erotic sculptures.

Ritualized sexual antics don't represent open society. The past society was also barbarically misogynistic by present day standards. And past is irrelevant anyway to define our present character. I just want to check whether the book contains proper references for that claim against Gandhi. If yes, I guess the quality of his moderated views only can save him from the barbaric deviation of his philosophy.

About Bhagat Singh

2013-01-01T16:41:00.001+05:30

He was born into a Sikh family, but many historians believe he was an atheist.

Via BBC News

It's no belief but declared so in no uncertain terms by the man himself.

Why I am an Atheist by Bhagat Singh

Absurdities of Caste Genetic Studies - Notes

2012-12-29T00:55:00.000+05:30

It appears population genetics studies are a great platform for new age Manu-s to come up with their own classification of different castes. It's unclear whether these new classifications are the results of latent casteism of the researchers involved or some kind of political pressure or some kind of malicious game being played.

Check the following from a new study on South Indian castes (which is an exaggerated claim as the study included samples from Tamil Nadu only) [1].

Indian populations are broadly classified into two categories: ‘tribal’ and ‘non-tribal’ groups [3]. Tribal groups, constituting 8% of the Indian population, are characterized by traditional modes of subsistence such as hunting and gathering, foraging and seasonal agriculture of various kinds [2], [3]. In contrast, most other Indians fall into non-tribal categories, many of them classified as castes under the Hindu Varna (Color caste) system which groups caste populations, primarily on occupation, into Brahmin (priestly class), Kshatriya (warrior and artisan), Vyasa (merchant), Shudra (unskilled labor) and the most recently added fifth class, Panchama, the scheduled castes of India [2], [3].

First, I must appreciate that the description is far more academic than the one we found in the study of the Roma.

But what on earth is Kshatriya -> warrior and artisan? First of all, the four fold Varnashrama doesn't fit to the South Indian society (if at all it fits anywhere). But as of now, that's a first with the Kshatriya definition. Let's check the castes part of warriors and artisans.

Valayar -> Erstwhile Net weavers
Tamil Jains -> Jains (thus not a caste)
Ezhava -> This is a Malayali caste. Erstwhile agricultural labourers and toddy tappers
Mukkuvar -> Erstwhile fishermen

Theoretically, I suppose Valayar could be considered as artisans. However, from a general caste perspective typical artisans were smiths (goldsmith, carpenter, blacksmith etc...). They were not included in the study.

If being a soldier can be considered as a warrior/Kshatriya then, almost all castes in South India fit the bill. In certain regions few castes were exempted (not really because of their lower status, as Brahmins were also exempted) and most other castes had to send men when their feudal chieftain went for a battle. Most of the Dalit castes were also part of armies (true in Kannada/Tulu and Tamil regions as far as I know). However, the status of these castes were always low. Being a soldier had nothing to do with upward mobility or "assimilation".

How Tamil Jains became part of the list is still a mystery.

Then there is a special category of "Dry Land Farmers" and it includes the following castes.
Yadhava -> herders
Vanniyar -> farmers
Nadar -> agricultural labourers, toddy tappers (equivalent to Malayali Ezhavas)
Piramal Kallar -> ?
Maravar -> ?

I wonder when Ezhava could be part of the warriors why not Kallar, Maravar and Nadar?

Also, I'm just disappointed to see the reliance on the oldest Tamil works to create an early Dravidian society. At least, in my opinion most of interpretations were nationalistic, highly biased and many of them not even peer reviewed (which I came to know was the case with the Brahmin apologist George L Hart's interpretation).

They make the following claim and I feel these (bolded) are strawman arguments.

It is therefore most likely that the Varna system was superimposed on the pre-existing and historically attested social system without significant population transfer or input, implementing a new social hierarchy and order during the Pallava/Chola period from the 6^th through 12^th centuries CE [15], [22]. However, the implementation of the Varna system may have not been uniform across preexisting non-tribal populations since many of the populations within DLF and tribes do not practice either Vedic rituals or have very definite patrilineal system and clan exogamy. Overall, our results suggest that the genetic impact of Brahmin migrations into TN has been minimal and had no major effect on the establishment of the genetic structure currently detected in the region

I suppose many Dravidian endogamous tribes became endogamous castes as society became sedentary. In fact, some of the endogamous castes had endogamous clans, likely showing different tribal origins but later consolidation under one identity because of the caste system. I suppose even now one can find endogamous tribes that speak the same language (eg. Pathans). My point is it's irrelevant if there were many endogamous communities before the enforcement of the caste system. It also masks the ritualized discrimination which was the caste system by equating the divisions to tribal endogamy.

Nevertheless, it requires a great stretch of imagination to call populations of that antiquity in South India (with a primitive agricultural setup) a structured society and also absolute naivety to believe the neat classification described in the texts (which clearly describe people with a complete idea of the caste system living in that society).

Reference:
1. Population Differentiation of Southern Indian Male Lineages Correlates with Agricultural Expansions Predating the Caste System - Arun Kumar et al. (2012)

Random Thoughts - Love_Lust

2012-12-27T23:22:00.000+05:30

Queen frontman Freddie Mercury (aka Farrokh Bulsara) was clearly Homosexual-Heteroamoural.

So the present list includes:
Heterosexual-Heteroamoural -> Anna Karenina (Fictional, Anna Karenina), Max Weber
Heterosexual-Homoamoural -> Nick Carraway (Fictional, The Great Gatsby)
Heterosexual-Inamoural -> Emma Bovary (Fictional, Madame Bovary)
Homosexual-Homoamoural -> Uncle Frank (Fictional, Little Miss Sunshine)
Homosexual-Heteroamoural -> Francis Bacon, Freddie Mercury
Homosexual-Inamoural -> ?
Asexual-Heteroamoural-> ?
Asexual-Homoamoural -> ?
Asexual-Inamoural -> ?

Section 295A -Blasphemy law

2012-12-04T12:41:00.001+05:30

Even though this is one of the legacies of the colonial period, it certainly appeals to a large herd minded believers in India. Now there is a clamour among liberal society to repeal this act as Sanal Edamaruku, president of the Indian Rationalist Association, has become its latest victim.

In my opinion, instead of repealing this act, there should be couple of clauses that can render it little more civilized.

1. Religious feelings are not considered hurt or outraged if the person in question is born to a parent or parents of the same religion, whether practicing or atheist. This should be a natural corollary to the fundamental right, 'freedom of religion', as enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

2. Religious feelings are not considered hurt or outraged if a person of any other religious denomination or an atheist has used scientific methods to attack it. This should be seen as part of the person's obligation to the fundamental duty of 'developing scientific temper' as enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

The Roma - III

2012-12-01T19:44:00.002+05:30

A previous paper on Roma found maternal lineages originating from north-west of India. A new paper is now reporting that even their paternal lineages could be traced to the same location[1]. Their main lineage H1a1a has haplotype matches with a nomadic tribe, Doma, hailing from that region. They reconcile their linguistic and folk origins which puts them in the Gangetic belt (Central Indo-Aryan) by noting Doma's spread from north-west to eastern India.

Of course, there is the Gyaneshwar Chaubey(one of the authors in the study) special in the study:

Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes are the endogamous groups in India that are given a special status by the Government of India to uplift their social status (for more details, refer [47]). Historically, the assimilation of so-called tribals into the caste system generally did little to ameliorate the socio-economic barriers or enhance the marriageability of former outcastes to members of the middle or high castes.

Let's analyze those sentences.
1. This is a research paper. Do you introduce a group as something that has been given special status? That should be the last sentence in a long essay. I suppose an introduction to untouchability and isolated non-mainstream groups in India would have been in order.

2. In the second sentence, the use of the word 'assimilation' gives a positive spin to what in reality a 'name calling' and exclusion of groups. The word assimilation in fact puts the onus of the failure directly at their doorstep.

3. Basically, those two sentences are some kind of observation and not really neutral definition or introduction thus a complete absurdity in a research paper.

Reference:
1. The Phylogeography of Y-Chromosome Haplogroup H1a1a-M82 Reveals the Likely Indian Origin of the European Romani Populations - Niraj Rai et al. (2012)

Random Thoughts - Love_Lust

2012-11-26T00:04:00.000+05:30

There is an interesting essay in The New Yorker on Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. I suppose the author is basically making a point that Anna Karenina is indeed a love story and not a lust story so presented in a latest movie based on the novel.

I read the novel seventeen years ago. I suppose classics are wasted on teenagers. I don't remember anything from the novel except for that one scene.

Anna was planning to return home after visiting her brother's. Her nephews and nieces were very much attached to her. So one day before the departure she became aloof to them. When they felt that their aunt no longer gave them any attention they also withdrew from her.

I don't know why but I remember this.

Regarding the character Anna, I suppose, she is a regular heterosexual and heteroamoural woman. But I thought Emma Bovary was a more rounded character than Anna. Maybe I can understand Emma better as she also comes from a middle class family where money is a constant requirement. In fact, her tragedy is her misfortune with money even though according to my understanding she shouldn't be succumbing to materialist addiction. Anna's story I can only read as a distant observer as I don't have the background to relate.

Random Thoughts - Astrology

2012-11-24T00:06:00.001+05:30

I have this nagging thought that whether one should only oppose Astrology as a pseudo-science or should also consider it as a criminal offense if an astrologer makes negative predictions. I would guess sometimes they should even be arrested for culpable homicide. Two events have set me thinking in this direction.

Couple of years ago, I participated in a discussion in an atheist forum. One of the participants gave many examples where he had seen the predictions of an astrologer coming true. I found many of them dubious but the one prediction that interested me was about his father's death. According to him, his father died on the same day that was predicted by the astrologer.

I know a family who are hopeless believers. Unlike that rationalist with an ambiguous attitude towards astrology because of his experiences, I get plenty of hilarious examples from this family that only strengthens my conviction about its pseudo-science status. But I suppose I should be neutral and go by only the scientific studies. Couple of recent ones in the family are;

1. An old woman who is supposed to be dead by August 4th of this year is still alive
2. A young man is looking for a suitable match. He has 'Mars Fault' so can only marry a girl with that condition. But there is an additional clause that faults in both Horoscopes should lie in same house. Or so their astrologers had told.

From the prospective brides' side, it turns out that;
- The additional clause that faults should lie in the same house is wrong and in fact based on other positions, faults in different houses are auspicious and the same house is dangerous
- The guy's horoscope reading itself is wrong and he doesn't even have that 'Mars Fault'!

These prospective brides' astrologers are even more reputed than the guy's astrologers or so accepted by the guy's family. I'm sure they will overcome this momentary crisis of faith and get back to astrologers with even more vigour. Last checked they haven't gone to that astrologer and asked their money back(or chided him) since the old woman is not dead.

Anyway, I believe the reason this old woman didn't die like that old man was because he knew about the prediction and she didn't (keeping underlying medical conditions common in both cases). I would think any negative prediction would have psychological impact like 'white coat hypertension'. It would be better to study any such "successful" negative predictions with this angle. What if those persons would have had few more years to live but for those predictions?

babul mora naihar chooto hi jaaye

2012-11-05T12:57:00.002+05:30

Search for "babul mora naihar chooto hi jaaye" and you'll find hundreds of links to this famous song composed by Nawab Wajid Ali Shah of Oudh. He composed this when he was exiled by the East India Company, when they took over his kingdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wajid_Ali_Shah

Satyajit Ray's only Hindi movie, - "shatranj ke khiladi", based on Munshi Premchand's short story is to be watched to understand the character of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah.

I've translated this song into English, trying to retain the poetry.

O’ father, the home I grew up in is slowly

fading away;

Four men are bedecking my palanquin (coffin)

with flowers;

And soon I have to leave behind

all that is mine.

I see an unfamiliar garden that seems

a mountain to me;

And my new courtyard seems

an outside land;

O’ father, I’m going away, never to

come back!

Random Thoughts- Love_Lust

2012-11-04T01:14:00.003+05:30

Gustave Flaubert's Emma is a complicated character and the setting is confusing. I tried to dissect her love and lust profile. Some of the points that I could list out to understand her character are the following.

1. She doesn't feel any love for Charles, her husband
2. She lusts after men both rich (Rodolphe) and poor (Leon)
3. She doesn't feel any maternal love towards Berthe, her daughter
4. She is a materialist and addicted to that
5. She doesn't have any words to express her love
6. She isn't smart enough to see through the game of Lherueux, the shopkeeper
7. She is smart and quick witted enough to give excuses to her husband when her affairs were about to be exposed
8. She is seduced by Rodolphe like ruling class seducing poor farmers and
9. by Leon like an actor seducing his audience

From (1), (2), (5), (6) and (8). I would say she's a heterosexual, inamoural woman victim of manipulations of capitalist and feudal patriarchal societies acting in their own ways.

However, her lack of love to her daughter appears to be added to give her somewhat a negative character. The areas of the brain that gets turned on during sexual love, romantic love and parental love are mostly mutually exclusive. Even if one lacks romantic love, I suppose that doesn't make her/him automatically lose parental love.

(4) is rather strange. The brain region that overlaps with addiction is love and not lust. But the character is inamoural so I suppose she shouldn't have any addictions too.

(7), I suppose, again, added to give her a negative touch. Or it may be that she's a product of the feudal patriarchal society where the person is dumb in front of a stronger one and manipulative of a weaker one. So, it might not be a negative character and even here too she's a victim of patriarchal thought that she's imbibed (and resulting in victimization of the weaker characters).

(9) is a direct message that by taking seriously make belief world of dramas and stories people become irrational. Or in other words by conquering their crave for love seducers can make them open up their lust. But being an inamoural woman Emma shouldn't be succumbing to the charms of the words in stories and if my characterization as an inamoural is incorrect then Madame Bovary should have been a story of love instead of lust( Emma found again in adultery all the platitudes of marriage). Even the shy Leon gains her after he becomes "confident with women" or after he masters feudal-patriarchal game of conquest.

Source:
Gutenberg Project

Idea of god

2012-11-02T13:03:00.001+05:30

Just a flash idea. It came when I was listening to a Bhimsen Joshi's classical rendition - "main to tumara daas janam janam.." (I'm your servant for eternity, in this life and every new life).

Though god has been declared dead by many philosophers and in today's effluent society, the market value of god has gone down significantly, when the idea of god originated, I think it was really revolutionary!

So, this idea is about why it's good for a poor man, who may be constantly exploited by the man he works for, to believe in god. Consider that you are working for a man, who swears at you and treats you badly but you have no option but to oblige because you don't know what will happen if you lose this job. Then comes god! You say to yourself, I'm not bothered by what this man does to me. I'm only answerable to god. When the rich man you work for says, "Just see what I will do to you, you xxxxx." You can say - ".... there is god" The rich man is not offended because the rich man also believes in the supremacy of god. You, on the other hand, believe god is on your side. It gives you solace. This way you have an invisible friend. Apart from a strong shoulder to lean on in difficult times (like death of a dear one), idea of god also gives you right to relax and take time off to celebrate festivals. When the rich man says - "Come on Sunday, I need this cleaned up." you can say - ".... not on Sunday, there is puja in the temple...." etc.

This thought helps me understand why the Black slaves of North America turned to Christianity. Same thing holds good to poor people working in a feudal society. It also explains why a revolutionary society (like Communist society) wants to ban religion. If one believes in religion, his response to exploitation will be naturally subdued. Karl Marx wrote "Religion is the opium of the people". This thought helps me understand Marx's statement better.

This thought is making me take pride in religion again. Long live religion! We just cannot afford to be a god-less society. But will religion stop revolution? Perhaps, but revolution is always run by a few frontrunners and rest of the people need god to lead a bearable life in his harsh world.

There is a corollary too to this idea. One can try to replace god by market in the above example. You are a poor man; you are exploited. Over time the society (including you) has outgrown god but you have a strong market. So you turn to the market (just like you turned to god in the above context) to escape exploitation.You quit your job and get a new one. You continue doing this till you get an employer who respects you and you find happiness. This should be the ideal situation in an ideal world. This will bring an end to all exploitation. But...the market is not infallible like god. When the market is good, you are fine but when it turns bad, you become a slave. But now, having lost your god, you have no one to turn to. You cannot be happy in this situation without god. Therefore, I believe, it's becoming more relevant to keep god alive in today's market-oriented world where poverty is on the rise and not the contrary.

If one believes that happiness and pleasant life is the single most important thing in this world for all people - rich and poor - and that a large percentage of the people in the world will always be poor, then one cannot imagine a world without god!

Random Thoughts - Love_Lust

2012-10-20T00:56:00.000+05:30

Based on my classifications of human love/lust orientations, I would propose the character Nick in 'The Great Gatsby' is basically a confused Heterosexual-Homoamoural.

The general impression because of his sexual encounter with Mr. McKee and his closeness with Gatsby, I suppose, is that of a homosexual male. His breakups with girlfriends give an idea that he is not really into girls. But I would think it's basically a confusion he developed because of incompatible orientation.

I believe the following excerpts give an idea of his orientation and because of it his confusion about his sexuality.

Chapter 2: Nick meets McKee at a party
"I have been drunk just twice in my life, and the second time was that afternoon."

"Mr. McKee was a pale, feminine man from the flat below."

"'Keep your hands off the lever', snapped the elevator boy.
   'I beg your pardon,' said Mr. McKee with dignity, 'I didn't know that I was touching it'."

    "...I was standing beside his bed and he was sitting up between the sheets, clad in his underwear, with a great portfolio in his hands.
      Beauty and the Beast...Loneliness....Old Grocery Horse...Brook'n Bridge...."

The sexual encounter has been shown in a negative light. Nick wasn't in control of the situation. McKee basically groped and then raped the drunken Nick. Obviously, that would be the last time he had been drunk. However, McKee looks feminine. Thus incident is of confusion and not of clear exploitation.

Chapter 3: Nick narrates his brief affair
"I even had a short affair with a girl who lived in Jersey City and worked in the accounting department, but her brother began throwing mean looks in my direction, so when she went on her vacation in July. I let it blow quietly away."
Very clearly Nick is attracting homosexual males. The lack of heteoamourality makes it easy for him to leave the girl as he doesn't not want unwanted attention from the brother.

Chapter 4: Jordon reminisces her teenage past
"I had on a new plaid skirt also that blew a little in the wind, and whenever this happened the red, white and blue banners in front of all the houses stretched out stiff and said tut-tut-tut-tut, in a disapproving way."
This is a sexually teasing description. Curiously, Nick also describes Jordon as a masculine figure. The character Jordon appears to be created with an idea of both masculine and feminine traits. Thus apparently satisfying Nick's heterosexual and homoamoural orientation.

Chaper 6: Nick listens to Gatsby's passionate encounter with Daisy and remembers his shame
"At his lips' touch she blossomed for him like a flower and the incarnation was compete."

"Through all he said, even through his appalling sentimentality, I was reminded of something-an elusive rhythm, a fragment of lost words, that I had heard somewhere a long time ago. For a moment a phrase tried to take shape in my mouth and my lips parted like a dumb man's, as though there was more struggling upon them than a wisp of startled air. But they made no sound, and what I had almost remembered was uncommmunicable forever."

Nick clearly understands that the passionate encounter between Gatsby and Daisy (heterosexual-heteroamoural) was everything that his experience was not. Or there was no incarnation with McKee.

The way incidents happen and characters describe, I would think the narrator is positively a heterosexual and homoamoural male.

Random Thoughts - Love_Lust

2012-10-08T00:27:00.000+05:30

I haven't read Plato to have an opinion whether his 'Platonic love' is really about non-sexual love ( or love) between males or sexual love ( or lust) between them. Let me consider the term's general description as a non-sexual love between males. Since the recent studies of the brain have shown that the areas that get activated during love and lust are mostly mutually exclusive, I consider 'Platonic love' is a valid term. I'm going to redefine it as 'Homoamourality' and thus apply to both men and women. The lack of love between the same sex people would be then 'Inamourality'.

I suppose a person can be classified into the following categories:

1. Heterosexual and Heteroamoural
2. Homosexual and Homoamoural
3. Heterosexual and Homoamoural
4. Homosexual and Heteroamoural
5. Asexual and Heteroamoural
6. Asexual and Homoamoural
7. Heterosexual and Inamoural
8. Homosexual and Inamoural
9. Asexual and Inamoural

I believe for a deep same sex friendship, persons need to be homoamoural. If they are either heteroamoural or inamoural then they find it difficult to develop friendship with the same sex.

Communism and Kerala - VII

2012-09-15T15:51:00.000+05:30

Casteism is kept alive not only by the caste specific marriages but also by immanence of the castes brought up in the occupational caste world view. Just as a person shouldn't want to continue his traditional manual scavenging job, it is equally important that a person because of his Brahmin background shouldn't want to become a priest, scholar or teacher (overlooking the narrowness of that idea in the past) . So any direct or indirect methods to break this uni-dimensional thought process should be welcomed.

It is with this background I find the communists' opposition to FDI in retail sector disappointing. Unfortunately, Indian communists never made an attempt to apply the communist ideas based on the class based European society to the caste based Indian society.

Their love for small scale retailers who I would think never would vote or fund communist parties defies the logic. This is the place where they need to stand by the ideology (that is they want to eradicate caste ideas of traditional occupations). Shouldn't be difficult for them to make this paradigm shift as they appear to have forsaken some of their economic ideas.

I had come across opinions that the cultural revolution in China, even though harmed a countless number of people, was also responsible for a new and liberated way of thinking. I would think these kind of reforms, though hardly of the scope and the scale of the cultural revolution, that could bring down the existing artifacts because of the caste system are always welcome. I'm sure everyone would bounce back from any setbacks because of the reforms as they already have "cultural capital" unlike the huge chunk of faceless population.

The Just Individual - III_a

2012-08-16T10:12:00.000+05:30

I have previously argued that 'innate' morality might not be true. The mechanism for morality involves series of steps. A new study has come to similar conclusions that babies may not have innate morality.

From Science Daily

New research from New Zealand's University of Otago is casting doubt on a landmark US study that suggested infants as young as six months old possess an innate moral compass that allows them to evaluate individuals as 'good' or 'bad'.

The 2007 study by Yale University researchers provided the first evidence that 6- and 10-month-old infants could assess individuals based on their behaviour towards others, showing a preference for those who helped rather than hindered another individual.

Based on a series of experiments, researchers in the Department of Psychology at Otago have shown that the earlier findings may simply be the result of infants' preferences for interesting and attention grabbing events, rather than an ability to evaluate individuals based on their social interactions with others.

According to the researchers this morality can be explained by simple association hypothesis. The mechanism to invoke 'self pity' is also similar. In the case of preferred event, there would be self pity against the hinderer and in the case of non-preferred event no mechanism.

The Just Individual - notes

2012-03-19T09:32:00.000+05:30

When I was going thro' the article, Suppressing Feelings of Compassion Makes People Feel Less Moral, it reminded my own dilemmas.

Around ten years ago, I started ignoring beggars completely. My reasons for it have evolved over time. However, during the initial days, I used to feel somewhat uneasy. I used to give a big amount of money to one or the other person just to make sure I haven't lost my compassion. But over time I have stopped it.

I guess a person is clearly aware of his/her diluting compassion whenever s/he takes such steps. However, the awareness wasn't articulated until now.

From the article:

People who had suppressed compassion did, apparently, have a change in their sense of morality: they were much more likely to either care less about being moral or to say that it's all right to be flexible about following moral rules. Cameron thinks this is because suppressing feelings of compassion causes cognitive dissonance that people have to resolve by rearranging their attitudes or beliefs about morality.

The Just Individual - v

2012-02-12T00:24:00.002+05:30

As I discussed previously, morality's basic block is empathy which originates from 'self pity'[ii]. Since the mechanism of empathy requires few traits and faculties[iii], this empathy and in turn morality need not be unique to human beings. There are studies that have observed empathy and/or morality in other animals too[i].

I have also observed that, in some situations, empathy can turn to oneself when the empathy to others results in loss to self[iv]. Then the person considers the greater morality in his/her self-preservation as the self-pity to himself/herself masks everything else. Therefore, morality has its limitations because of its underlying empathy mechanism. However, some of the religions have adopted morality of this nature as a noble way.

The famous story of Jesus rescuing a woman from an angry mob by invoking self-pity of people for their own sins and making them feel guilty for not empathizing with the woman is a wellknown case here. Even though not a rational way, it's still acceptable since it rescued a non-criminal powerless woman from a certain death. However, even today, many, even among rationalists, unquestioningly, take this story as a guiding force of morality.

Just the other day, I read a journalist deriding the movement against corruption as one set of corrupts fighting other set of corrupts. He makes a fundamental mistake that politicians or bureaucrats are as powerless or non-criminal as the woman in Jesus's story. More importantly, it's also lost to the journalist that it's a ploy to rescue a woman who was obviously not guilty. However, the story is lost but contextless generalization of one sinner condemning the other is left.

In another development, I read a person invoking 'cast the first stone' in a discussion related to a news that ministers in Karnataka were caught watching porn in the Legislative Assembly. The self-pity gets so strong here that the legality aspect of watching porn in restricted areas gets lost.

Thus I believe morality is a primitive trait. It anyway doesn't set us apart from other animals (Why do we have to bother about that point anyway?) and it also has its limitations. Therefore, logically, if humans want to really make themselves unique then they should be just. Justice cannot be decided by individuals because the morality of an individual for the self overrides it. Justice is a communal morality. It directs rightful empathy towards an individual even if it meant displeasing the morality of communities. So, it's a communal morality for the sake of an individual.

An individual is a just person if s/he subscribes to this communal morality and ready to condemn herself/himself in certain situations.