Every simple question has a whole bunch of complicated questions trapped inside it, waiting to get out
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Friday, October 5, 2012
Waiting for all the brilliant insight
When you first read a post by Seth Godin, you're struck by the brilliant insight. And then you pause and reflect a bit, and see the banality through the epiphany.
Here, for instance, is his latest ... http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2012/10/waiting-for-all-the-facts.html
Usually, when someone says (and I quote from his post)
"I'm just going to wait until all the facts are in"
it's just a casual way of saying (and I paraphrase slightly from his post)
"I don't know enough at this time to make a useful decision"
or even
"I don't know enough at this time to know what else I need to know to make a useful decision"
Either that or it's a tactful way of saying
"I choose not to respond now"
In such situations, people won't come out and say what exactly they're waiting for, because then they'd be pressed further on that count. Simple, mundane stuff, when you think about it. But to Godin it's a big deal.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Minor Observation #10
An optimist considers the possibility that things could get worse than they are at present, but eventually believes that they won't. A pessimist considers the possibility that things could get better than they are at present, but eventually believes that they won't.
It follows then that optimists believe things are so bad that they can only get better, and pessimists that things are so good that they just couldn't get any better.
So who has a more positive attitude in dealing with the present?
Sunday, September 9, 2012
A tale of two quotes
A friend posted this quote on Facebook earlier today:
"Don't walk behind me; I may not lead. Don't walk in front of me; I may not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend." - Albert Camus
And I was immediately reminded of this quote:
"Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way." - George S Patton
To my mind, this sums up the main difference between an egalitarian/ libertarian culture (of the type found in a network of peers) and a patriarchal/ authoritarian one (of the type found in a hierarchy based on power). The question is not about good or bad, or right or wrong - these are moral judgments rooted in the culture one belongs to, and will only affirm the "home" culture.
Both cultures are equally capable of providing the foundations to build a harmonious society, if all members of that society were to be of the same disposition. Given such homogeneity, even if the economic and political outlook of individuals were to be different, the method of resolving such differences would be clear to all - in one case based on evolution of a consensus (failing which, a majority opinion) through discourse, and in the other, based on the dictates of those who wield power.
However, in our real world both cultures co-exist in space and time (as I'd observed in an old post), albeit in different proportions in different spaces and different times. And that is why we will always have deep divisions arising out of these two very different cultures. Our best bet would be to look at the direction in which the resultant vector (weighted by the population of each of these two cultures) points at a given time, within a given society. And that means periodic negotiations leading to a moderation of conflicting views, on a continuous basis.
Tough work but such is life.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Grammar of Kakistocracy
With Anna Hazare and co. "joining politics", a major debate appears to have been settled.
Over the last year or so, conniving politicians have tried every trick in the book, at all possible levels and from all possible quarters, ranging from the basest brute force attacks to the most sophisticated intellectual criticism, to derail "team Anna" and their agenda. This alone is an indication of the kind of threat Hazare et al. posed to the smug kakistocracy that controls this country. And this in turn is a vindication of the vital role of protests in a vibrant democracy. Hazare and co.'s movement was always political - all protests are - but because of their naivete, they have been manipulated into turning partisan. Their critics are now jumping with glee, falling all over themselves with "See? We told you so" messages and wisecracks.
There's a place for protest in every democracy, and Anna and his network were doing a fine job. Though I did not agree with everything they said, they enjoyed my support for their central cause - of fighting corruption through peaceful protests. Would I support the political party they are going to form? I doubt it. Their core competency was protest, not governance. I won't be surprised if they were to suffer a massive defeat at the hustings (they may even lose their deposit) and from then on be relegated to a footnote in history. What started with a bang last April, I am quite certain, will end with a whimper.
Corrupt politicians and bureaucrats are already rejoicing, because they've managed to neutralize the single major threat to their control over the status-quo. They can now return to business as usual and continue with their rent-seeking modus operandi, unencumbered by protests. Think-tankers and policy wonks, funded or supported by the powers that be in some way or other, are already thrilled that they've managed to "expose the hidden fascist agenda" of these humble protesters. (Remember the "Grammar of Anarchy" argument?) They can now return to their echo chambers and continue their cerebral masturbation, undistracted by the challenge of finding fault with the reform proposals put forward by a bunch of rubes who dared to challenge their brahminical authority as problem-solvers to the country.
Meanwhile the nation suffers a huge loss. Kakistocracy wins. Again.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Liberty, Equality and Free Markets
Is Liberty more important than Equality? Or is it the other way around? There seem to be many debates lately that eventually boil down to having to choose one over the other. To my mind, this is a false choice. Agreed, Liberty is a great concept. But should it be enjoyed only by those who demand it most vociferously? Or by everybody?
To anyone who understands and embraces the idea of Liberty, it should be obvious that it is inclusive in nature, that it applies to all in equal measure. Equality is implicit in Liberty. Any interpretation to the effect that some (do, or should) enjoy more or greater freedoms than others is a fallacy. People who (claim to) champion Liberty -- who quote Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death" at the drop of a hat -- but see Equality as a threat to Liberty, are the ones who want Liberty exclusively for themselves and their kind. And are therefore not true to the very ideal they cherish, the very cause they uphold. True believers in Liberty should therefore strive for greater Equality.
To strident advocates of Free Markets, who (ostensibly) understand and embrace its core principles, it should be obvious that Free Markets are inclusive in nature: the more the players the freer the markets. Exclusive markets are not free, and Free Markets are not exclusive. Where there is unequal access to markets, there will be less participants -- such markets will be less liquid, price discovery will be less efficient, transaction costs will be higher. By not removing entry barriers (or worse still, by erecting artificial entry barriers) to markets, they betray the very ideal they cherish, the very cause they uphold. True believers in Free Markets should therefore strive for equal access opportunity for all.
Post Script to Minor Observation #9
Apropos of my previous post, here're a couple of things I'd like to add:
First, to off-post/ off-line questions about why "A level playing field ...[blah]... is the only true path to progress", I have this to say: consider the impact on science, commerce and the arts, if the human capital of a couple of billion people were to be unleashed - a potential energy (which is currently locked up and underdeveloped due to malnutrition/ poor health and lack of access to a decent education and basic infrastructure) going kinetic. Just think about it. That's all.Second, as an afterthought, I'd like to add a fourth reason to the three I listed:
4. Belief (that "it is what it is", and attempting to change it is either a travesty or just plain futile).
The belief that it is a travesty is an extension of Puritanical thought, but is not limited to Puritans alone. There are many in the Eastern hemisphere whose upbringing might have had nothing to do with Puritanism (i.e. the religious denomination) per se but who are Puritans all the same.
Regardless, there is a belief that the right approach is to not level the playing field, but instead, to "make good" through eleemosynary acts. Quite often, this turns out to be insidious as reason #3 (Deliberation) albeit for different reasons. Except in cases where all that caritas manifests in the form of building institutions that work towards long term improvements in infrastructure, education, health-care etc. and towards putting all that within reach of those that don't have access to it presently.
Minor Observation #9
Most people in privileged positions are not inclined to be in favor of what is commonly referred to as a "level playing field". (Yeah, I know, sounds clichéd, but my other option is to indulge in some form of sesquipedalianism.)
This could be because of:
1. Ignorance (not knowing exactly how uneven the playing field is)
2. Apathy (not caring how uneven the playing field is)
3. Deliberation (specifically wanting to keep it uneven)
Of these, the third is the most pernicious. It arises from the insecurity that such people have -- that they may not actually deserve the position of privilege they currently enjoy. If they were secure in the knowledge that they did, then they should be confident enough to face the competition brought on by a level playing field. In fact they ought to welcome it.
A level playing field is important not because it is the morally correct thing to have (which it may well be), but because it is the only true path to progress.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Scientists and Philosophers - what's the fighting all about?
My last blog entry here dealt with philosophers and their "science envy". A few weeks later, I posted an article by Lawrence Krauss - "A universe without purpose" - on my facebook page, commenting on my discomfort with Krauss's casual treatment of "nothingness", and also about how his title and opening line promise far more than what the content offers (which is very little, by way of clarity).
Today, I came across a more systematic critique of Lawrence Krauss and his views, by a more learned gentleman and a certified philosopher to boot (he's a professor at CUNY). His en passant swipe at Richard Dawkins is particularly amusing, and confirms what I'd suspected back then, when I posted Krauss's article on facebook - Krauss and Dawkins are mutual shills. Hawking is not spared either. If philosophers suffer from penis envy, there's another Freudian metaphor for what scientists suffer from, according to the author:
Okay, others can play the same game too, so I’m going to put forth the hypothesis that the reason physicists such as Weinberg, Hawking and Krauss keep bashing philosophy is because they suffer from an intellectual version of the Oedipus Complex (you know, philosophy was the mother of science and all that... you can work out the details of the inherent sexual frustrations from there)
Interesting side story: my last blog entry post referred to a popular saying about ducks, and a comment by a reader here says:
Accept that the philosophy of science is as much use to a scientist as ornithology is to a duck. Ornithologists do know a lot about ducks, but ducks know nothing at all about ornithologists
Indeed.
Reinforces a view I've often voiced - that scientists would do well to either completely stay away from philosophy, or embrace it without prejudice and understand it fully. Unfortunately, may of them wander into philosophy's wide open pastures, and, encouraged by their success as scientists, display their ignorance with hubris. Which is all very well, as long as they don't make gross errors in methodology. For example, concluding that all swans are white simply because the global scientific community has heaps and heaps of evidence to that effect and none to the contrary. And therefore elevating the status of that hypothesis to a "fact".
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Science, Philosophy and Taxonomy
Is philosophy a scientific discipline? Or is science a school of philosophy?
Here's a view, along the lines of "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ..." http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/philosophy-by-another-name/
Here's another, along the lines of "Lipstick on a pig ..." http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2012/03/05/dear-philosophers-please-get-over-your-science-envy-now/
Why would philosophers want to make Philosophy sexy and easy to sell as a hot subject? The next thing you know they'll be making sitcoms featuring philosophers, along the lines of 'Big Bang Theory'. Tchah! I'd say Philosophy is better off being vague, amorphous, protean in its scope (as perceived by those who don't get it) - an esoteric indulgence of "intellectuals" (in quotes, as those who don't get it would rather put it) with nothing better to do, and, in the final analysis, of no great significance in that it creates no "real" wealth. (Or does it?)
Parting thought: Philosophers suffering from penis envy of Science should note that Technology dangles a bigger dongle. (Unless you're a physicist who's made a career as a hedge fund manager. In which case, you rule, dude!)
[Modified version of my facebook posting earlier this week.]
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Dilbertian Wisdom Losing Its Bite
I used to be a big fan of Scott Adams' blog, and even now go there once in a while. But these days it is when I really have nothing better to do, as opposed to going there routinely and expecting to find something really witty, wise and hilarious.
Now he goes and asks whether economics is a real thing. Seriously? I'm no economist and, frankly, I enjoy almost all digs at economists that I come across. But hey, when ridiculing something, try and pick the right things about it to ridicule, will you? Otherwise all you're doing is exposing your own shallowness and ignorance. (Do check out comments by "B+")
No, Scott. Fairness is a not a myth. Economics is not unreal. And if predictions are what you want, go consult an astrologer.
Scott Adams, IMO, is running out of steam. He's at a stage when he should either do humor or wisdom, because his unique style of blending both, which made him famous, is getting seriously unfunny. Some time back he posted something about fairness being a mythical concept. Wanted to ask him if he would continue to think that if I bopped him on the head and took away all his money. I think it was in the context of the Occupy protest, if memory serves, when it was fashionable to be a liberal who takes a contrarian view. Anyway.
Now he goes and asks whether economics is a real thing. Seriously? I'm no economist and, frankly, I enjoy almost all digs at economists that I come across. But hey, when ridiculing something, try and pick the right things about it to ridicule, will you? Otherwise all you're doing is exposing your own shallowness and ignorance. (Do check out comments by "B+")
No, Scott. Fairness is a not a myth. Economics is not unreal. And if predictions are what you want, go consult an astrologer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
