Dear All,
When I was in Paris, I stayed with a guy who had an excellent collection of books on history, religion and war. The cold air only forced me to stay indoors with the valuable books. I was left with an interesting thought after I finished a book. "DOES GOD HAVE A FUTURE?". Will be back with more on this. No takers for the provocative statement from the Bhagwad Gita yet??
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
Bhagwad Gita
The Bhagwad Gita is an acknowledged source of knowledge. In Chapter 4, Section 4, Shlok no.33 I came across an interesting one. Besides other things it says "..................for all actions without exception culminate in knowledge........". The more I think about it, I marvel at its universal simplicity. Any thoughts on this? I will try to dig out more from the Gita.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Is Knowledge similar to Energy as defined by Physics?
I think that the connection drawn between Knowledge and Energy by Dull Boy (Rathod) makes sense. Today mankind does the same thing (maybe not exactly same) with knowledge as it does with energy sources. Energy can be converted from one form to another. In the same way, there are subtle changes to the knowledge passed on at each stage in the chain (by which I mean the transfer of knowledge from person to person).
I think that this can be seen by a simple activity, which involves the transfer of a simple message from one person to another via six to seven people. Usually, one can observe that the message given to the first person in the chain differs in some ways to the message that the last person in the chain gives to the intended recipient. This is definitely the effect of the personal interpretation of each person in the chain. Each person interprets the message in his / her own way. That way, might not be the way that the sender of the message intended the message to be interpreted, which therefore will lead to the wrong message being passed on, which is again subject to misinterpretation. This shows how knowledge can be manipulated by language.
Similarly, even perception is subject to biases. For example: One group of people is shown a movie (let's say without dialogues so that it is just the perception which is stimulated) and then is asked to describe to another person, who hasn't seen the movie. It will be seen that all the descriptions will not be the same. There may be some points overlapping, but overall, the mental image that the person who has not seen the movie forms, in each case will be different.
In each of these cases, we can see the manipulation of knowledge. In the first case, the message remains the same, but the last person will have got a different idea of what was expected of him. In the second case too, the movie remains the same... only the interpretation of perception of each person is different. This may occur with the Reason and Emotion too, but I can't seem to find any good enough examples for it.
In comparing this to energy, (using a completely physics approach) if we have a sound emitter which is projecting sound at a block of ice, we will see that the ice will begin to melt. It will be observed (I have tried this for my physics lab) that the ice would have absorbed some energy. And if some calculations are done, we would find that the energy absorbed by the ice to melt, would be the same as the energy given by the sound emitter (almost the same, since some energy will be absorbed by the medium in the transfer of energy). In this way, we can see the conversion of the sound energy (mechanical energy) into kinetic energy, which causes the water molecules in ice to vibrate faster and thus break free of the ice cube. But the total amount of energy is still the same. Similarly, I think that the knowledge changes (if only in a small way) with each person in the transfer, and that the total amount of knowledge (if it can be called amount) is the same. The correlation with the experiment can also show the loss of some amount of knowledge at each stage.
I think that this can be seen by a simple activity, which involves the transfer of a simple message from one person to another via six to seven people. Usually, one can observe that the message given to the first person in the chain differs in some ways to the message that the last person in the chain gives to the intended recipient. This is definitely the effect of the personal interpretation of each person in the chain. Each person interprets the message in his / her own way. That way, might not be the way that the sender of the message intended the message to be interpreted, which therefore will lead to the wrong message being passed on, which is again subject to misinterpretation. This shows how knowledge can be manipulated by language.
Similarly, even perception is subject to biases. For example: One group of people is shown a movie (let's say without dialogues so that it is just the perception which is stimulated) and then is asked to describe to another person, who hasn't seen the movie. It will be seen that all the descriptions will not be the same. There may be some points overlapping, but overall, the mental image that the person who has not seen the movie forms, in each case will be different.
In each of these cases, we can see the manipulation of knowledge. In the first case, the message remains the same, but the last person will have got a different idea of what was expected of him. In the second case too, the movie remains the same... only the interpretation of perception of each person is different. This may occur with the Reason and Emotion too, but I can't seem to find any good enough examples for it.
In comparing this to energy, (using a completely physics approach) if we have a sound emitter which is projecting sound at a block of ice, we will see that the ice will begin to melt. It will be observed (I have tried this for my physics lab) that the ice would have absorbed some energy. And if some calculations are done, we would find that the energy absorbed by the ice to melt, would be the same as the energy given by the sound emitter (almost the same, since some energy will be absorbed by the medium in the transfer of energy). In this way, we can see the conversion of the sound energy (mechanical energy) into kinetic energy, which causes the water molecules in ice to vibrate faster and thus break free of the ice cube. But the total amount of energy is still the same. Similarly, I think that the knowledge changes (if only in a small way) with each person in the transfer, and that the total amount of knowledge (if it can be called amount) is the same. The correlation with the experiment can also show the loss of some amount of knowledge at each stage.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Knowledge......
Everything we talk of today, yesterday and tomorrow are all matters after the human race came into existence. After the mind came into existence. After the thought came into existence. So the very first thing (early) man knew, was because he thought it before. Now when I say thought, I mean the processing of sensory information, the emotion and maybe even the reasoning involved. The thought preceded the knowledge, which was anyway subjective and biased because of perceptional, lingual and genetic individual differences which are present at all times. And again, where do these differences take root? The mind. So for knowledge to become something objective and perceptionally immune, the mind needs to be eliminated. But the existence of knowledge came with that of man and his mind, his tool. So could you say that universally true knowledge was that abstract quantity that existed before life? It existed before the creation of the mind when the universe was a mass of energy? When it could not be proved false and was certain because there was nothing to change it? Did we kill knowledge? The only con of this idea is that it defeats the purpose of knowledge. Wait. What is the purpose of knowledge? Is it to assist life? Or is it just neutral, a spectator? If it were to cushion and cause our every step then yes, it does play the role of God, whose absence and presence have decisive consequences, assisting and hindering us
But the idea of knowledge existing before we did, lead me to link it up with a theory on energy. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed; it is always converted from one form to another. Can the same be said for knowledge? Knowledge cannot be created nor destroyed, but is continuously being converted from one form to another? ….
But the idea of knowledge existing before we did, lead me to link it up with a theory on energy. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed; it is always converted from one form to another. Can the same be said for knowledge? Knowledge cannot be created nor destroyed, but is continuously being converted from one form to another? ….
Communicative Chaos
Argument on the basis of language usage is extremely pointless, hinders discussion and is a huge waste of time. It is irritating that people argue about how a sentence is phrased and the irrelevant tangible meanings they can draw from it. ‘One man’s joy is another’s sorrow’ makes perfect sense, owing to our genetic configuration and varying mental states. But to misinterpret this quote to the extent of saying that what one man calls hate, another calls love is despicable….
It’s the twenty first century and we’ve gotten way past our ancient grunt and growl lingo. We have over a dozen languages and dialects to help us communicate. And we need only one of those to make people understand what we mean. Language helps to standardize and define physical, emotional and mental substances no matter who is observing or experiencing them. But you must realize that language gives sound to already existing things both physical and emotional. It wasn’t language that created them. It just labels them for our convenience. How does it bring about convenience? Well, imagine you go to work one day and your boss assigns you the task of filing all his papers. Now, if you took the word filing to mean tearing, how much trouble would you have gotten yourself into? Now you realize the convenience of being on the same language stratum? So language is what gives meaning to pre-existing actions and humans have evolved to associate and relate specific phonetics (in their infinite combinations) to actions, emotions and physical objects. Language is that guideline along which all human interaction should take place. It is incorrect to say that our thoughts, actions and most importantly feelings, are limited and regulated by language.
Some people might like to think of language as authority. Authority is society and what we have been unquestionably told. Being in the 21st century much less of authority is being seen. Authority does not mold our thoughts or actions at all. People argue that it is authority that instill the emotion of love in us, and we can say we love only once we experience those feelings. That has some truth in it, but it is not authority at all that does this. It is language. Language has given a name to that rush of blood to the heart, that elevation, that momentual bliss that most of us experience. It has named it love. Now when one needs to convey that they have felt this they would only say love. If they came up to you and said ‘Hey, I just experienced confusion’ you would most definitely be confused. This is exactly why language is a convenience..
It is important to remember that the theory of knowledge deals with abstract and highly subjective ideas. This means that opinions differ from person to person and there is no such thing as a correct idea or a correct answer. So when a group of people is asked: What do you love the most? The response would be very diverse. Love is defined as deep intense affection; sexual passion; obsession and attachment towards a person or thing and everyone feels this towards something or the other. You can argue that what one man loves, another hates and if this were the case then it is language that helps straighten out this dilemma and make sure we talk about everyone’s love and no ones hate. But don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that everyone should love the very same things, as characterized by society. What I mean is that, you cannot call the feeling of love, that of hate. You cannot say you are happy when you are experiencing sorrow or grief. You have to say you are sad. Your perception of sad might differ from another’s, but that is purely individuality. Then again, you can ‘claim’ that you are happy when you really aren’t. But then that is a matter of choice.
The chaos that would follow if these matters were overlooked would be astronomical. So it is very important that we concretely define everything we talk about. Not a definition as the world sees it or the one that appears in your dictionary, but a definition that would take into consideration and be the amalgamation of everyone’s perspective of the ‘word’ (being defined) and not inhibit intellectual discussion…
It’s the twenty first century and we’ve gotten way past our ancient grunt and growl lingo. We have over a dozen languages and dialects to help us communicate. And we need only one of those to make people understand what we mean. Language helps to standardize and define physical, emotional and mental substances no matter who is observing or experiencing them. But you must realize that language gives sound to already existing things both physical and emotional. It wasn’t language that created them. It just labels them for our convenience. How does it bring about convenience? Well, imagine you go to work one day and your boss assigns you the task of filing all his papers. Now, if you took the word filing to mean tearing, how much trouble would you have gotten yourself into? Now you realize the convenience of being on the same language stratum? So language is what gives meaning to pre-existing actions and humans have evolved to associate and relate specific phonetics (in their infinite combinations) to actions, emotions and physical objects. Language is that guideline along which all human interaction should take place. It is incorrect to say that our thoughts, actions and most importantly feelings, are limited and regulated by language.
Some people might like to think of language as authority. Authority is society and what we have been unquestionably told. Being in the 21st century much less of authority is being seen. Authority does not mold our thoughts or actions at all. People argue that it is authority that instill the emotion of love in us, and we can say we love only once we experience those feelings. That has some truth in it, but it is not authority at all that does this. It is language. Language has given a name to that rush of blood to the heart, that elevation, that momentual bliss that most of us experience. It has named it love. Now when one needs to convey that they have felt this they would only say love. If they came up to you and said ‘Hey, I just experienced confusion’ you would most definitely be confused. This is exactly why language is a convenience..
It is important to remember that the theory of knowledge deals with abstract and highly subjective ideas. This means that opinions differ from person to person and there is no such thing as a correct idea or a correct answer. So when a group of people is asked: What do you love the most? The response would be very diverse. Love is defined as deep intense affection; sexual passion; obsession and attachment towards a person or thing and everyone feels this towards something or the other. You can argue that what one man loves, another hates and if this were the case then it is language that helps straighten out this dilemma and make sure we talk about everyone’s love and no ones hate. But don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that everyone should love the very same things, as characterized by society. What I mean is that, you cannot call the feeling of love, that of hate. You cannot say you are happy when you are experiencing sorrow or grief. You have to say you are sad. Your perception of sad might differ from another’s, but that is purely individuality. Then again, you can ‘claim’ that you are happy when you really aren’t. But then that is a matter of choice.
The chaos that would follow if these matters were overlooked would be astronomical. So it is very important that we concretely define everything we talk about. Not a definition as the world sees it or the one that appears in your dictionary, but a definition that would take into consideration and be the amalgamation of everyone’s perspective of the ‘word’ (being defined) and not inhibit intellectual discussion…
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Bird Boy
Hi Guys. Recently I read this intriguing piece in a newspaper.
" A young boy is close to being more bird than human because he was never spoken to, while living in an almost aviary. The 7 year old Russian boy lived with his mother in a 2-room apartment full of cages and droppings. She had domestic and wild birds in cages. His mother neither beat him nor left him without food. She just never talked to him. It was all the birds that communicated with the boy and taught him 'bird language'. A social worker, who 'rescued' the child from his home, said "When you start talking to him, he chirps". His mother signed a bond to release him last week. The boy now lives in an asylum, but will soon be transferred to a center for psychological studies."
To me it raises questions such as :
1. Has the boy really been "rescued", or is he in for much more misery as a guniea pig of experiments? (An ethical question???)
2. Is it possible that birds have a language? Could it be learnt by humans as is a pointer from the report?
3. How would the boy express his emotions? Would we be able to interpret or understand them? If we do, then would it give us a better understanding of the bird world?
Let me know ! I invite everyone to join in and start writing.
" A young boy is close to being more bird than human because he was never spoken to, while living in an almost aviary. The 7 year old Russian boy lived with his mother in a 2-room apartment full of cages and droppings. She had domestic and wild birds in cages. His mother neither beat him nor left him without food. She just never talked to him. It was all the birds that communicated with the boy and taught him 'bird language'. A social worker, who 'rescued' the child from his home, said "When you start talking to him, he chirps". His mother signed a bond to release him last week. The boy now lives in an asylum, but will soon be transferred to a center for psychological studies."
To me it raises questions such as :
1. Has the boy really been "rescued", or is he in for much more misery as a guniea pig of experiments? (An ethical question???)
2. Is it possible that birds have a language? Could it be learnt by humans as is a pointer from the report?
3. How would the boy express his emotions? Would we be able to interpret or understand them? If we do, then would it give us a better understanding of the bird world?
Let me know ! I invite everyone to join in and start writing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)