Some Funny Definitions....

Came across some funny definitions, you also might want to have fun having read 'em.

School: A place where Papa pays and Son plays.

Life Insurance: A contract that keeps you poor all your life so that you can die Rich.

Nurse: A person who wakes u up to give you sleeping pills.

Marriage: It's an agreement in which a man loses his bachelor degree and a woman gains her masters.

Divorce: Future tense of Marriage.

ears: The hydraulic force by which masculine willpower is defeated by feminine waterpower.

Lecture: An art of transferring information from the notes of the Lecturer to the notes of the students without passing through "the minds of
either.

Conference: The confusion of one man multiplied by the number present.

Compromise: The art of dividing a cake in such a way that everybody believes he got the biggest piece.

Dictionary: A place where success comes before work.

Conference Room : A place where everybody talks, nobody listens and everybody disagrees later on.

Father : A banker provided by nature.

Criminal : A guy no different from the rest....except that he got caught.

Boss: Someone who is early when you are late and late when you are early.

Politician: One who shakes your hand before elections and your Confidence after.

Doctor : A person who kills your ills by pills, and kills you by bills.

Classic : Books, which people praise, but do not read.

Smile: A curve that can set a lot of things straight.

Office: A place where you can relax after your strenuous home life.

Yawn: The only time some married men ever get to open their mouth.

Etc.: A sign to make others believe that you know more than you actually do.

Committee : Individuals who can do nothing individually and sit to decide that nothing can be done together.

Experience : The name men give to their mistakes.

Atom Bomb: An invention to end all inventions.

Philosopher : A fool who torments himself during life, to be spoken of when dead.

Grudge House

I am afraid of "Grudge House"
And the noises that come from it.
As a private joke, I wag my finger.
"Grudge House" sends me a blank note.

It is indeed a marvelous structure.
I can see it fine from here, thanks.
A book tells me to walk up to my fear,
And that it will pass away.

I stay indoors and watch tv instead.
The mail piles up on the lintel.
Many years pass; I draw some comics.
"Grudge House" is repainted twice.
--March, 06'

God's child...

"Estranged fate, my own broke me
prisoned by beloved, who will free me
so much expectations, little justified

They say, you don't have to be a Jew
To disapprove of murder, Tears burn my eyes
Oh Lord!!, I wanna touch u, talk to u
bring me home, bring me home"

The dream has gone...

I wrote this when I set forth in Bang bang bangalore.

"Moment of Freedom
as the prisoner
blinks in the sun
like a mole
from his hole

a child's 1st trip
away from home
that moment of Freedom

but the innocense has gone
like floyd's child grown
he left the grass
dreams of soothing divas"

Individualism: Are we upto It??

Considering individualism: I think the only really important value it has comes from the fact that most if not all of the greatest advances in human history have been brought into play by the dogged genius of very particular individuals. From their endeavours would come vast benefits for others. In short, true individualism services the masses. Beyond that it is hard to see how individualism has much of a contribution to make to humanity. Although many may don the pretensions of self determination and assert their individuality, really the vast majority are sheep-like conformists able to go along with the general sway without much difficulty. Sometimes I get the feeling that with them that if they were put in a time capsule and dropped back into the 14th Century, they would soon adapt such is their lack of moral purpose or anything that resembles a truly centred orientation.

In the modern age, individualism: that I have freedom of expression, will not be told what to do, that I live life on my own terms etc., to me seems like one great pretension. The modern individual is just as conformed as any other. He is just more deluded about identity than in previous ages. True individuals can think outside the context. They can summon the imagination and see what might be a better way and as a consequence bring about some improvement. These are the genuinely unique persons and it is because of what they contribute that individualism as an idea still needs to be kept alive and well. Societies that deliberately suppress creativity are inevitably over-coercive and soon become deficient in important ways. Eventually they cease to move on.

However, as I've said before, once all of the advances necessary for decent existence have been arrived at - and I do think the time will come when most of the problems of elemental life that have historically blighted the human condition have been solved - then we will have truly high-functioning societies. Only then would there be no need to always have a place for individualism. Such societies wouldn't have to be unduly coercive and would for the most part serve the lives of individuals as opposed to frustrate them. The creations of past-age genius would always be there remaining fully integrated in the world perhaps with only the occasional update or amendment required. Overly creative individuals in such a society would tend to subvert it and be something of a nuisance.

Hitherto attempts at collectivism, from Christianity to communism, have tried to act as if what I have just described is possible by just identifying it or announcing it, and then making demands that people live by the associated codes and practices. This is nonsense. Such a thing can only ever be evolutionary. It can only happen in its own time. Progress in the broadest sense for humans is woefully slow. It took them twenty thousand years to learn how to plough a field and a further ten to learn the importance of limiting power through democracy. They are still fighting over whether that is a good thing with no sign of a truce in the immediate future. It will take another ten or twenty thousand before all the inherited genetic damage can be flushed out and anything like what I am proposing become a reality.

Question is: can humans refrain from being at each others throats long enough for such a world to come into being? Can they avert the real danger of wiping each other out? Worse still, will the hostile universe beyond manage not to inflict some kind of galactic catastrophe on the rather vulnerable creatures that inhabit the planet Earth?

Spatial Understanding

• There needs to be a firm understanding of the limitations of knowledge with no absolutes in the strict sense whether moral, ontological or any other kind.

• There is no answer to the god or not god question. A properly resolved moral philosophy makes the question of god evaporate.

• Ours is a 'for us' mentality. Everything known is relative to our world-view which is not absolute. This central insight has to be woven into the fabric of language and subject to categories of truth. It has to be remembered that what is known is knowledge for us, to us, about us and always takes its source reference from our psychology.

• It is understood that there will always be much more knowledge out there than ever can be had. This should be the root of a humility in outlook and reflected in the formulation of language.

• Humans are at the centre of their own universe which is psychological. In the wider universe they are barely a blip on the radar.

• All the knowledge accumulated and accepted is only ever absolute in a relative way i.e. relative to the base psychological make-up of humans.

• The distinction between strict absolutes and relative absolutes is crucial. It represents a world within a world. The human truths are fixed but only by limitation. We are the masters of our own contained universe.

• Truth categories in use of language are necessary to avert purely semantic arguments.

• The right moral philosophy arises from an exhaustive grasp of the emotional and psychological human constitution. In other words: how we behave toward each other is answerable to a fundamental understanding of the mind. This includes all the historical deficiencies and genetically inherited mental conditions. This moral philosophy becomes the tablet of stone except it is not transcendent at source but is devised by humans from direct experience and observation. It is by them and for them. Perhaps stone is not quite the thing but some modern synthetic compound!

• The god question evaporates because the arriving at a moral philosophy out of emotional intelligence means there is no need for a god to provide absolute authority. The authority comes from within and most significantly it works. It works not just for this person or that community in a given place or time but for all at all times. There need be no further argument about morality. Its tenets are commandments in a sense but insights would be a better term. The moral code follows naturally and requires no commanding.

RACISM AND EXCLUSIVITY

The more I think about the racism issue the more I think that what’s at the heart of it is exclusivity. As long as we remain wedded to exclusivity as a mode we will always have systems which conspire to separate people. Racism is the darker part of separation. Exclusivity and separation go together. In our society we are exclusive at every quarter - in personal and professional relationships, in families and marriages, in work, in the legal system and contracts, in politics and religion. Everywhere there are barriers to connection. There are very few areas in our world where participation isn’t heavily censored.

This is so prevalent it is almost endemic. Helped along by individualistic, technology-driven culture it is leading to a state of atomism where increasingly people are bound up in their own cell-like existence less connected, less involved, less caring with respect to what goes on in other lives. It is the antithesis of an inclusive world where people are integrated. It is far from the open-door society where knowledge and information as well as goods are shared.

As an attempt to keep out rather than welcome in, exclusivity is the insidious root of the racism problem. Racism easily follows from it in the sense that it is another one of the many areas of life where people are willfully kept apart. Looked at this way, exclusivity is a kind of social apartheid. To exclude based on ethnic history has become a cause for reprimand. To do it as a matter of course in common exchange is a regular occurrence and happily regarded as the acceptable way of things.

And yet, it has to be said there are good reasons why we are keen to establish boundaries. The down side of humanity may be a fixed reality, something given that we have to work with. That would be all the bad acts, the stupidity, the greed, the corruption, the deviancy, the wickedness, the criminality, the almost unspeakable evil that at times has been visited upon humans by other humans. If these are a given then protection is required. People have to insure themselves from that down side, from the minor transgressions to the most heinous crimes. It’s not surprising they should be careful of congress and quick to create divisions.

In that case I think it comes back to this: that if individuals across the board could live to a standard of ethics and behavior that took into consideration the interests and the feelings of others then quality of life would improve immeasurably. People and their associated groups would feel less need to segregate. In a world like this compassion would be the primary value. The concerns of others would take precedence over personal selfishness. This is the simplicity in the Christian philosophy. It was also the essence of the Marxian message.

If we have to erect barriers and restrict participation let it only be sometimes; lets not have it become a modus vivendi. Instead of upholding exclusivity as a virtue thereby elevating its place in consciousness, better we should treat it a as a necessary requirement, not something particularly admired, just something we need to do, but only minimally, not at every turn till it becomes a corner-stone. Until we learn to connect better and not succumb to a world of infinite divisions we will forever stunt our potential at least; at worst the horrors of racism, ethnic cleansing and war will continue to haunt existence.

FREEDOM

The kind of freedom I have sought for most of my life is the kind that allows me to just say no. I like to have the freedom to stay clear of the situations and people I dislike. In this sense it is a kind of negative freedom. The more positive kind I associate with power, that is, the power to do particular things. That is more dubious in that nearly always with power comes responsibility and with that comes obligation which in turn brings restriction. Then the freedom to say no is compromised.

My attitude may mean perpetually having to stay out of things. This is fine to a point but of course no participating means a reduction in the kinds of things generally considered valuable in life - kinship in particular. So, as ever, it is a matter of balance: freedom to say no but with the power to participate enough to stay interested.

FUNDAMENTALISTS (music)

When somebody sells a hundred million albums I want to know about that. I want to know what it is that can have such appeal. I want to feel what it’s about and identify with the sway of the phenomenon. I’m interested in the sound, the image, the people behind it, the whole package that so attracts the public.

I find that infinitely more interesting than the marginal tastes that are found among what I would call aesthetic fundamentalists. You get these fundamentalists in every kind of music. They are the snobs, the exclusivities who believe their choice is so much better, so much more enlightened than everybody else’s. They are journalists, record company A&R folk, or just your average disaffected, what I refer to as the dislikers, those who are better exercised in what they don’t like than what they do. They tend to prefer ugly to beautiful. They are drawn to the untutored, the undisciplined, the unaccomplished before the skilled and the conventionally talented. Theirs has less to do with an appreciation of art and the time honored values associated with great works. They are more concerned with finding material that resonates with their contempt. These are the rock-culture equivalent of religious zealots. They would like to tell everyone how to live and what to like. They wish to kill off all they disapprove of.

As I’ve said before, my personal (and professional) interest in music is more of an emotional identification with the popular work. I want to share what the hundred million are getting and not distinguish myself from them in some pseudo-superior way.

Apart from the genuine artistry that is usually to be found in mainstream pop there is also for me a sociological dimension. I’m intrigued by how a particular artist is able to take the zeitgeist and run with it, sometimes redefining it on the way. That’s a thing to do in life. That is why I am more interested in Eric Clapton than Joy Division.