Miles to go...

This blog has shifted to http://jayajha.wordpress.com/. All the entries have been exported there. So, please post you comments there itself.

Ramblings by Jaya Jha

Monday, January 17, 2005

Something in between??

Categories:
I have often found myself in a situation when I have equally good relationships with people who, if they come in direct contact with each other, would give the quintessential picture of 'hostility'. For most part, it happens because I find it difficult to hate or love an ideology or philosophy in totality... And hence people with different ideologies, possibly find me sufficiently sympathitic towards theirs :-) This is a phenomenon which spans a wide range of issues, but thanks to Priya for sending me the following, which articulates the idea very well for the environmental movement!

http://www.infochangeindia.org/changemakers5.jsp

Read the answers to the first four questions in the interview.

Also, I could not help but admire the genuinity of the following experience:

"I praised Infosys in my debate about Arundhati Roy, not so much Infosys as the corporate sector in Bangalore. And immediately among the radical environmentalists I became suspect because I had said a good thing about some industries."

(In one my blog entries, I had compared Tolstoy's 'Russia' with Gorky's, with a sympathy for downtrodden, and I got labelled as a 'communist' :-D)

Somehow the institutions in human civilization always try to project the world simplistically. Probably this is the only way for establishing the superiority of particular ideologies/institutions. But what the hell... I wish world could work better by accepting the complexities :-) It also takes me back to "Class vs. Cause" (how many times must you refer to it, Jaya??). When the fight for cause becomes fragmented because of fight for survival and supremacy of classes...

Thanks once again, Priya! It was really nice to see the issue articulated so well by a knowledgeable person.

Categories:

posted by Jaya @ 6:00 PM Categories: &url=http://jayajha.blogspot.com/2005/01/something-in-betweencategories.html','delicious','toolbar=no, scrollbars=no,width=700, height=250,status=yes,resizable=yes'));myPop.focus();">del.icio.us  

1 Comments:

  • At Tue Feb 22, 06:07:00 PM 2005, Blogger Jaya said…

    Since I am removing the Haloscan Comments, I am copy-pasting the comments I got on this post here.

    --

    ah! the labels one gets stereotyped into!
    Bash up BJP and I am a 'congress-wala'. Say something meaningful about history and I am a communist.
    It seems to be so essential for people to place others within rigid boundaries that they often forget that there is no absolute (or perhaps they are oblivious of that fact!).
    It is very common among radicals (left or right) to stereotype and that is why I try to stay away from both...
    MadHat | Homepage | 01.17.05 - 10:52 pm | #

    Madhat: while it does makes sense to try and stay away from stereotypes, we need to take care that in this pursuit we do not become a person without stand because those who stand for nothing, fall for anything !
    And if our opinions are strong enough, someday society will be forced to introduce a new stereotype for us, something like rightwing communist may be
    abhaya | 01.18.05 - 11:06 am | #

    Gravatar Nicely weaved post.
    While thinking about class and cause (not vs.), does not each one’s existence is completely dependent on the other like hen and egg problem? Of course the former ones change in sizes and shapes during transformation period.
    In my opinion, fight for a cause, if fragmented will lead to minority only and the feel of supremacy will be superficial one. To get the supremacy the cause must flow towards more logical and widely acceptable view, which will add more classes. The complexities in cause, despite goodness will take much longer time to be assimilated by the mass, the simple thinkers. And by that time the simpler causes would have made room forming the bigger class to dominate.
    And it’s better to improve the in house “environment” before improving the external one. Does ‘Clean the station’ effort leave more dirty dust bins at the prime locations?
    Prem Piyush | Email | Homepage | 01.18.05 - 11:11 am | #

    If one misinterprets any message of a sender, one should not be blamed. It's definately a failure of communication and the sender is at fault.

    Well, simple things are clear, well defined and easy to communicate. Can we expect similar characteristics for complex things.

    However, there are advantages (or disadvantages?) of accepting complexities . We need not dig deeper.

    But, as it stands, why are complex things made of simple things? Or is it an illusion? have we forced it?

    The term complex implicitly signifies - possibly made of many simple things. Complex also signifies..ill defined.

    In my opinion, complexities can be dealt with simple details only.

    Possibly, I am arguing against the topic "whole is more than sum of its parts" I insist that this is so only if the whole is clear enough to articulate.
    Sandeep | 01.18.05 - 4:20 pm | #

    Why must it be the "whole" 's limitation that it can not be articulated? It might just be the limitation of the means of articulation that we have, that the 'whole' can not be clearly articulated using them! Words do fail... and they are the most common means of articulation, as far as I can see. Further, even if things can be articulated, probably the means of articulation are not developed enough to provide constructs required to present them in simple enough way...


    As such, I do not have anything particular against the means of articulation Your argument just brought this to my mind...

    Problem, however, may also lie with the person trying to convey the whole, if he/she does not know how to use the means of articulation to its fullest. Or it may lie with the receiver if he/she does not know how to appreciate the use of the means of articulation (Why should they be unconditionally exempted as you have done?)! And probably its a mix of problem on the part of the sender
    Jaya Jha | Homepage | 01.18.05 - 5:01 pm | #

    (contd. from the last comment)

    And probably its a mix of problem on the part of the senders as well as the receivers which tempts the senders to go for simplification. Why should the 'whole' be blamed for that? Its there as it is... Problem is with the sender or the receiver or the means of articulation or any combination of the above...

    Sorry, if I failed to utilize the full potential of the means of articulation
    Jaya Jha | Homepage | 01.18.05 - 5:04 pm | #

    I agree that it is not "whole"'s limitation but our limitation. I also agree that the compacts of communication and articulations are possibly not developed enough.

    But, then what do we do? because that's all we have and so, we better use it until we find a better solution. That's what we do. We used Transistor valves until we found Semiconductors.

    Second, why should we exempt the receiver for his inabilities? In my opinion, one cannot demand of the receiver to be able to understand what one is communicating. Therefore, the receiver should be exempted.

    "Whole" should not be blamed because it is just an object and not an actor.

    However, I appreciate the power of simplicity because it helps us deal with complexities. Probably an analogy will help. We have 26 alphabets to represent every possible word we encounter. In Sanskrit we have 53 (I think). In Chinese, we have more than 200 to represent the same set of objects. Can we say that Sanskrit is less developed than Ch
    Sandeep | 01.18.05 - 5:35 pm | #

    Continued...

    Can we say that Sanskrit is less developed than Chinese?

    If we were to deal with the complexities as it is, the number of elements required to represent the sample space would grow up beyond our capacity.

    Simplicity is very powerful...another such example is our beautiful number system. we deal with every possible number using just 10 numerals and in computers using just two of them! is it less developed.

    (got to go...sorry for the sudden break)
    Sandeep | 01.18.05 - 5:39 pm | #

    Looking at it from that perspective, problem possibly is not so much in simplification, but in over-selling the simplification... Problem is in forgetting the limitations of simplification, in saying that this simplified description will solve the problems of the world and hence not even striving for anything better.

    Can't comment on the languages, but yes - computers and number systems are nowhere close to capturing the complexities of nature and humans. I am not trying to demean the amount of work they do, but how many aspects of nature or even the human life can be captured in numbers and in computers for that matter? Inifinte information can not be stored... My old love for the reason of existence of chaos theory :p
    Jaya Jha | Homepage | 01.18.05 - 5:59 pm | #

    Gravatar So complexity analysis has started here.
    I too like to say something.
    Being unable to type all the matter again, I am just giving the link.
    When good Blogs fails to express!
    Prem Piyush | Email | Homepage | 01.18.05 - 6:22 pm | #

    I have read it, but your perspective assumes a certain rationale behind writing (in a blog in this context). And that assumption is that the blogger is writing for the readers. Well, while I am writing something in a public space, to certain extent I do believe in being able to convey my point. At least I shall try for that. Readers, their comments, their understanding is important, but what is more important is the motivation.

    Motivation for my writing are not the readers (forgive me if that sounds offensive, that's not the intention!). My motivation is much more internal and hence I won't even be able to articulate it... The kind of satisfaction I get just by being able to write some thoughts down is unexplainable. And if I start caring too much about readers that satisfaction and hence the sole motivation to write would be gone! I know I have readers and hence I try to explain things. Its good if you get to share your thoughts with others, but that's it. I won't give more tha
    Jaya Jha | Homepage | 01.18.05 - 7:09 pm | #

    (contd. from the last comment)
    I won't give more than I can, to make others understand what I am writing. And hence I do not aspire to become a professional writer. If some people enjoy what I write in a natural way, I feel great about it. If some people do not identify with it, it does not hurt anyone. Why bother?

    Shall I not write if I do not have readers? Of course, I will. If you want a proof, boycott this blog for a while and see...
    Jaya Jha | Homepage | 01.18.05 - 7:10 pm | #

    "Inifinte information can not be stored (in computers)"

    Can we possibly think of anything that can map infinite information?

    I don't know much about infinite mathematics (should I say, it scares me ). Hence no arguments on this or chaos theory (reminds me of a book I never studied)

    My point was limited to the power of digital. I didn't say computers are powerful.

    "but how many aspects of nature or even the human life can be captured in numbers"

    you bet! all of them, if we possibly have enough time in our life to do so. Here comes the power of set thoery and mapping.
    Sandeep | 01.19.05 - 10:48 am | #

    Gravatar Ah! my blog itself failed to express!I did not expected so many I's as a reply. Have you seen my comment on that post about the blogs I read? You have got good expression in your blog.Although it helps a lot to know about the person before reading about his/her writings.

    Instead of speaking in a lonely land, it's desirable to find some co-
    travellers at least some tribals, who can share the pain and joy.

    So much of typing and writing 4 blogs till late night by the blog administrator, does it require more proof?
    Prem Piyush | Email | Homepage | 01.19.05 - 12:47 pm | #

    No, it didn't fail to express. Since you made a general post, I did not post any comments opposing your views on your blog. You have a view which is all right. But when you give a link in comments of my blog, I was bound to think that you wanted me to draw some specific conclusion with respect to my posts/comments.

    Just a miscommunication with respect to gestures, I guess.
    Jaya Jha | 01.19.05 - 3:04 pm | #

     

Post a Comment

<< Home