Of late, there has been considerable debate among the sports fraternity, about the dedication of Indian cricketers to the game and to the country itself. While I do agree with the majority opinion that most of them are driven by self-motivated interests, the debate threw at me some questions befitting a much larger picture. Many eminent writers would have written many articles on patriotism and whether it is or is not required for a person to serve the nation. I have of course, never read much about it, but have chosen to delve upon it today. Considering myself to be a naive thinker on this topic, I expect my arguments to be quite rudimentary.
In this post, I choose to address the question of nationality. How are two nations actually different? Lets consider the simple case of two adjoining nations. Are they different because of the boundary lines or are they different because the people under the two nations are loyal to their respective governing bodies. For example, consider India and Pakistan without any governing bodies. Is it then, possible to distinguish an India from a Pakistan? Does the boundary matter in such a case? Its the same with any state. Two states are different only because the people within each state are loyal to their respective governing bodies. So the only way a governing body exists is because of the loyalty of the people to that governing body. This is actually quite obvious, but probably the line of argument isn't so. So for the sustainability of a governing body it is necessary that the body ensures that people remain loyal to it, and hence invoke the principle of patriotism. After all if there wasn't a concept called patriotism, the governing bodies wouldn't exist. So in other words, when one says that their country is great, they are actually praising the governing body. This is quite ironical because in general, even in cases where the governing bodies are democratically elected, they are often criticized. So, there is a constitution to which all citizen repose faith in, and thereby convince themselves that they are actually praising the constitution rather than the governing body when they shower praises on their country. In line with the arguments given above, it is my opinion, that it is absolutely necessary for a governing body to motivate the people whom it governs to be patriotic to its nation, solely for its own survival. This does not mean, that a particular person or a group of persons are driving this notion, but rather it is the whole system that drives it purely because it has to sustain. It is the indeed the oxygen to the governing system.
It is therefore in my opinion, sensible to love people around you, but it is probably not necessary for people to be (madly) passionate about the nation. The problem of course, comes that if one is not passionate about one's nation, he/she would be passionate about some other nation, purely as a matter of choice, complicating matters of governance.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Random musings on cricket
The champions trophy is underway and here are the way things have gone in Group B. The best team (WI) beats the two second best teams (Ind and Aus). The two second best teams beat the worst team (Eng, which is why they are at the bottom, and hence labeled "worst") . And now the worst team beats the best team. Disregarding the outcome of the Ind-Aus encounter, the end result is that WI would most likely end up at the top of the table and Eng end at the bottom of the table. The irony of the whole seeding system is that the team at the bottom of the table has beaten the one at the top. So, all in all, although all teams are consistent at times (in terms of winning and losing) and inconsistent otherwise, cricket as a whole is always random and unpredictable. Surprisingly, that is the precise element which draws hoards of people to cricket matches.
All games underlie the basic property of nature - The randomness prevalent within itself, which cannot be logically comprehended by the human mind.
All games underlie the basic property of nature - The randomness prevalent within itself, which cannot be logically comprehended by the human mind.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Some suggested measures to increase the scope of "victimless crimes".
Since the lawmakers [2] of our modern societies are so bent upon prohibiting or punishing for "victimless crime", i have thought of a series of measures, which they can consider. Among all "victimless crimes", the first [1] of these, that should be judged is the freedom given to thought. Theoretically, people who think a lot (or broadly; I am not just referring to libertarians), would also think about a lot of bad things (proportionately, i mean). Hence, they should attract punishment.
So, how do we decide who thinks more and who thinks less, and how do we decide upon the respective cutoffs?
The answer is very simple. In fact, in countries like India, we already have a measure of that. Some of you must have heard about the reservation policy in India. As such, the policy aims to bring about social justice and get all people on the same playground. So the lawmakers have done considerable research and have recreated certain hereditary systems through which they can distinguish people below and above the bar. Now, instead of encouraging "people-below-par" to acheive their respective targets (which, obviously is very harsh), they reap benefits on these people for under-acheiving, at the same time penalising the "people-above-par", thereby bringing everyone on par. This method is guarenteed to succeed, since it would bring the parity level value so low so as to meet the standards of any person, at the same time bringing the standards of everyone above it to meet its own. Of course, I should comment that the very method of distinguishing above and below par people is beyond the purview of any rational explanation.
So much for the small digression, now by these rationalized arguments, all those who are against this policy are those whose thinking levels are significantly higher, hence are punishable under the law of "victimless crime". By doing so, we can forcefully get the thinking levels of all people at par, and hence bring more social justice to these societies. Since we can safely assume that this category of people thinks significantly at higher levels, 22.7% of the time (remember, the first rule in constituting new laws is not to deduce figures based on statistics, If the lawmakers think "its obvious", that is more than sufficient to base the law upon those numbers), these people should be put in prison, for 22.7% of the total days in every year. While in prison, these people are to be altered to become more socially-conscious and socially-sensitive at society's expense. All is not bad for the people put in prison, for they can 1) meet and get to know famous people, 2) continue watching NDTV and CNN-IBN to raise false hopes, and 3) take Management Courses to reduce their thinking standards to prescribed levels.
Footnotes
[1] The first "victimless crime" that should be punished should actually be overeating, which causes more deaths in a year, than any other known form of drug abuse; but since I am not the first one to have suggested it, i have ignored it for the purpose of this article.
[2] According to this system, elected representatives (who "constitute" laws) should be those, who would normally be at the very low end of this spectrum, and thereby be in a better position to formulate such laws, and thereby develop the whole system to become self-evolving (and drive it beyond any measure of control)
Cult Graffiti
Scene I:
Peter Griffin's IQ Test results show that he is retarded, right above “lawmakers”.
Lois: That’s right Peter, they are red.
Scene III:
Lois: Ok, Peter, say the word "What"?
Lois: Peter, just say "what"!
Lois: Thats right Peter, you win.
a) As per the same logic, i should also be punished, but remember, since I am helping their cause, the logic evolves (by now you must have understood the process of rationality) and hence inapplicable to my case (hope that, atleast now i am at par with their required standards :))
b) Recent events (A drug abuse case and the reservation controversy) and consequent reports from opinionated newspapers have instigated me to write this article.
c) The reservation policy (that has been used as a metaphor in this post) can be best described as: "Appeasment of larger sections of the society by depriving social equality to the remaining minority".
d) The screen shots for the graffiti are borrowed from Petarded, which is the fourth season episode of the animated series Family Guy.
e) In this particular episode, there is scene in which an administrator shows a chart to explain where Peter's IQ result places him - on the lower end of "retarded", right above "creationists" (which has been replaced by “lawmakers” for this article).
--Rahul
What is the exact difference between the two sets of frames (above and below)?
[Woman walking downstairs, Eadweard Muybridge, late 19th century; This image is in the public domain]
See also: Marcel Duchamp's depiction of this same motion at
http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/modern_contemporary/1950-134-59.shtml
So, how do we decide who thinks more and who thinks less, and how do we decide upon the respective cutoffs?
The answer is very simple. In fact, in countries like India, we already have a measure of that. Some of you must have heard about the reservation policy in India. As such, the policy aims to bring about social justice and get all people on the same playground. So the lawmakers have done considerable research and have recreated certain hereditary systems through which they can distinguish people below and above the bar. Now, instead of encouraging "people-below-par" to acheive their respective targets (which, obviously is very harsh), they reap benefits on these people for under-acheiving, at the same time penalising the "people-above-par", thereby bringing everyone on par. This method is guarenteed to succeed, since it would bring the parity level value so low so as to meet the standards of any person, at the same time bringing the standards of everyone above it to meet its own. Of course, I should comment that the very method of distinguishing above and below par people is beyond the purview of any rational explanation.
So much for the small digression, now by these rationalized arguments, all those who are against this policy are those whose thinking levels are significantly higher, hence are punishable under the law of "victimless crime". By doing so, we can forcefully get the thinking levels of all people at par, and hence bring more social justice to these societies. Since we can safely assume that this category of people thinks significantly at higher levels, 22.7% of the time (remember, the first rule in constituting new laws is not to deduce figures based on statistics, If the lawmakers think "its obvious", that is more than sufficient to base the law upon those numbers), these people should be put in prison, for 22.7% of the total days in every year. While in prison, these people are to be altered to become more socially-conscious and socially-sensitive at society's expense. All is not bad for the people put in prison, for they can 1) meet and get to know famous people, 2) continue watching NDTV and CNN-IBN to raise false hopes, and 3) take Management Courses to reduce their thinking standards to prescribed levels.
Footnotes
[1] The first "victimless crime" that should be punished should actually be overeating, which causes more deaths in a year, than any other known form of drug abuse; but since I am not the first one to have suggested it, i have ignored it for the purpose of this article.
[2] According to this system, elected representatives (who "constitute" laws) should be those, who would normally be at the very low end of this spectrum, and thereby be in a better position to formulate such laws, and thereby develop the whole system to become self-evolving (and drive it beyond any measure of control)
Cult Graffiti
Scene I:
Peter Griffin's IQ Test results show that he is retarded, right above “lawmakers”.
Lois: That’s right Peter, they are red.
Scene III:
Lois: Ok, Peter, say the word "What"?
Lois: Peter, just say "what"!
Lois: Thats right Peter, you win.
Scene IV:
a) As per the same logic, i should also be punished, but remember, since I am helping their cause, the logic evolves (by now you must have understood the process of rationality) and hence inapplicable to my case (hope that, atleast now i am at par with their required standards :))
b) Recent events (A drug abuse case and the reservation controversy) and consequent reports from opinionated newspapers have instigated me to write this article.
c) The reservation policy (that has been used as a metaphor in this post) can be best described as: "Appeasment of larger sections of the society by depriving social equality to the remaining minority".
d) The screen shots for the graffiti are borrowed from Petarded, which is the fourth season episode of the animated series Family Guy.
e) In this particular episode, there is scene in which an administrator shows a chart to explain where Peter's IQ result places him - on the lower end of "retarded", right above "creationists" (which has been replaced by “lawmakers” for this article).
--Rahul
What is the exact difference between the two sets of frames (above and below)?
[Woman walking downstairs, Eadweard Muybridge, late 19th century; This image is in the public domain]
See also: Marcel Duchamp's depiction of this same motion at
http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/modern_contemporary/1950-134-59.shtml
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
