I'm driving out in a few hours. Pune - Bangalore - Mysore - Hassan - Bangalore - Goa - Pune is the plan at the moment and everything seems peachy.
Let it roll, baby, roll.
------------
(10th December 2010)
Back home now. Two weeks and about 3500 kilometres later, I'd have to say this road trip has been all sorts of epic. 4 days in Bangalore, 3 in Mysore, 3 in Hassan, 3 in Goa and most of that in my trusty and wonderful 5-speed Maruti 800, with the music turned up. Way up.
The weather has been fantastic. I can't explain it.
I don't have anything against rain... but you know that bit just before the clouds burst and for a few moments, everything seems to be in a suspended state of 'pleasant'? Well, somehow, the Weather Gods deemed it fit to serve us with those very moments... stretched out into fourteen exquisite days, all across the Deccan Plateau and Western Ghats. Quite.
On a related and very interesting note, there's a word to describe the smell of the earth after rain: Petrichor.
So yes, the drive was excellent. Other highlights include catching some terrific live music, from Dub FX to the happy chaps on the Goa jazz/blues/rock circuit... and some invigorating physical activity in the form of trekking and dancing and a ridiculously redeeming game of basketball.
My mind's been wandering a heck of a lot these past two weeks... and hopefully the posts to follow will have some evidence of that. For now, try these on for size:
1.
Uh 2.
And uh 3.
"Baby don't you understand... what you're doing to the man."
Salut.
What's in a Letter? The A - Z game (17th November 2010)
I just had a thought. I was writing an email when I suddenly felt amused by how the words I chose in one sentence came together rather beautifully. The aesthetic of language is a very interesting trait and I've always found it fascinating when words are put together (sometimes intentionally) to form alliterations or statements that really sort of roll off the tongue nicely.
Now alliterations are many words using the same letter, so I thought about how it would be novel to use each letter of the alphabet instead, and form a single sentence. And I would do this using the letters in sequence. It must have already been done by someone at some point but I thought I might give it a go.
This was my first effort... and I have to say, it is a very exciting exercise and I recommend everyone try it. It's like a little adventure; the fun is in weaving the words together while following the one and only rule: A to Z.
I'll end with something Timothy Leary once said. It's a great thought and fits here, I think. It's used as a lyric in a song by Infected Mushroom.
Damn, I love that part when the beats slip in at "letters in between" and then the words trail off. Really hits home.
Turn on, tune in, drop out.
Now alliterations are many words using the same letter, so I thought about how it would be novel to use each letter of the alphabet instead, and form a single sentence. And I would do this using the letters in sequence. It must have already been done by someone at some point but I thought I might give it a go.
This was my first effort... and I have to say, it is a very exciting exercise and I recommend everyone try it. It's like a little adventure; the fun is in weaving the words together while following the one and only rule: A to Z.
A boy could derive extraordinary fun going hunting in jail; killing lemurs, monkeys, necrophiliacs or pedophiles, quietly reducing suspicion to underestimate various wicked xenophiles yearning Zen!I'm not sure why my brain turned to killing animals and perverts, but I feel as though this can also have some psychological significance, if used in tests. I have to say – the first half of the alphabet is easy... but the second half gets tricky. Especially because you're halfway through the sentence. And you can only go a few ways with XYZ!
I'll end with something Timothy Leary once said. It's a great thought and fits here, I think. It's used as a lyric in a song by Infected Mushroom.
"But they all do sort of the same thing, and that is rearrange what you thought was real, and... umm... they remind you of the beauty of pretty simple things.
You forget, because you're so busy going from A to Z that there's umm... twenty-four letters in between."
Damn, I love that part when the beats slip in at "letters in between" and then the words trail off. Really hits home.
Turn on, tune in, drop out.
"Does God Have A Future?" (12th November 2010)
I've had a pretty interesting 12th of November. And I say this with any confidence only because I know how 12th of Novembers can be.
Relatively... uninteresting.
I woke up this morning and stumbled upon a TED talk by Michael Shermer. Michael is called a "debunker" because he spends his time investigating claims of UFO sightings and other supernatural phenomena. Like the grilled cheese sandwich of the virgin Mary that was sold for $28000 or you know, any faces or patterns people tend to see in otherwise uninteresting and dull things. He prefers to be referred to as a skeptic, and I suppose I agree, because all he's really doing is adopting a scientific and empirical method to approaching these miracles. He talks about 'strange' beliefs and how human beings have a tendency to look for patterns.
"The tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and non-meaningful noise."
It's an interesting talk and I am personally keen on any topics involving the principle of belief and factors that play into it... so my interest in this man was naturally piqued and I went to the website of the magazine Skeptic he started and came across this provocative title–
"Does God have a future?"
What made it particularly provocative to me was the fact that it involved a debate with Deepak Chopra! Now I don't know so much about Deepak, except that I won't read or encourage the reading (read: entertaining) of his material... but I do think he can provide a great perspective on the matters of spirituality or the new-age religion as one could call it, seeing as how he is such a highly revered man in the industry.
It started as a correspondence talk on CNN about afterlife, when Deepak decided to challenge Mr. Shermer to a debate in front of a live audience and I don't know about you, but this seemed like a terrific way to spend the rest of my afternoon. Here's a promo to the face-off: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lKyD8V3E3M.
It's five and a half minutes long and should give you a good premise to the entire soirée.
The URL to the 12 videos, each around 9 minutes is here: http://www.youtube.com/user/AtheistMediaBlog#grid/user/EAAE2D3FFB6BCCA8.
The debate had two sides to it. Michael Shermer and Sam Harris (also TED talker) on the side of science and skepticism, and Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston on the side of spirituality and a deeper consciousness. It was being held at Caltech and was bound to be an engaging discussion, no matter which side of the fence you sit on. Or even if you're an on-the-fence sort of person.
Now on the face of it, I must admit, I didn't know what to expect. My ignorance on the ways and oratory skills of Mr. Chopra and my agnostic stance on the topic in general had me favouring Michael and Sam from the start, but not entirely dismissing the proposition of Chopra and Houston coming out on top. Shermer seemed pragmatic but as we get into the debate, I found myself disappointed at his argumentative skills and his unfortunate "cop-outs", as Deepak rightly judged them. I suppose it was for lack of a better term, but using "woo-woo" and "fuzzy language" as a means to describe your opponent's argument is not giving much credibility to your own.
Sam Harris, on the other hand was a delight.
Initially I was a little skeptical about Sam, even though I didn't know very much about him... because he seemed to have a smug demeanor and I didn't want some self-righteous, condescending chap defending the likes of a stance that is already laced with rows of self-righteousness and condescension. But then, I suppose those qualities are inherent to a debate where one is arguing the existence of a higher power and you are aiming to refute their claim.
Au contraire, Sam Harris was well-spoken, polite and prolific and managed to seam words beautifully to elucidate his cause. There were times his mocking was less subtle, but for the most part, he was clever and tactful and crisp and his background in philosophy and PhD in neuroscience held him in good stead all through the debate.
Besides talk of oxytocin and dopamine, locality and nonlocality, quantum mechanics and a few other unmentionables, a layman ought to be able to follow this debate pretty smoothly.
1. The side of science aims to increase the influence it has on our day-to-day lives, along with our worldview so that sooner than later, the need for a dependency like organised religion is diminished. This is not to say that they are against religion, but rather, asking merely to reduce it to its core nature and purpose - a support group and a self-help tool.
At least this is what I took from it.
2. The side of spirituality is urging science and well, the world, to join the quest for one-ness and infinite consciousness and although the word consciousness perplexes the smartest of minds, one can't help but empathise with the pursuit of an understanding and overall goodness... and see that aside from the misrepresentation of science in their "explanations", they are doing no harm.
So then what is the harm, really, of having people like Deepak Chopra roam the metaphysical/phorical streets amongst the hordes of people looking to find a deeper meaning?
The harm is that the process leading to it is lined with an arrogance, suspiciously disguised as humility and service to a greater power... and the product is analogous to the fundamentalism inscribed in the forces of terror the world so evidently despises.
Again, this is what I gathered.
To summarise the debate, and I urge you to read these paragraphs carefully:
The science guys are scrutinising the spirit guys' arguments so as to expose what we can all speculate to be the future of God and whether people will, not should, eventually stop believing.
While the spirit guys are more interested in asking the science guys to support their claims so that they can, during the moments of the debate and thereafter, create a new understanding of God and consciousness – with the help of science.
On the surface this seems noble and idealistic, but I believe it has deeper implications of conceited and absurd aims of putting the ridiculous weight of revolutionising the entire world of spirituality on their shoulders.
And whose shoulders are these? The venerable Deepak Chopra is worth 80 million dollars.
I'd like you to take a minute to understand the implications of his net value.
And Jean Houston! Boy, she is just a champion of misdirection and really, a pitiful character who didn't belong in an intelligent dialogue like this. Don't get me wrong, she's very sweet and definitely someone who can tell excellent and unparalleled bedtime stories... but I mean, she's the oldest person on the panel and the wisdom she has accrued through her 72 years of experiences is quite visibly infected. She spent more time relaying century-old quotes and telling magnificent tales from her life than actually contributing to the argument.
Why Deepak chose her as his accomplice is only a testament to his own intelligence.
I'm tired of people talking about this being the most crucial and intense and deepest time the world has ever seen. I'm tired of this banter about humans being the enemy of the Earth and the bane of evolution and the cause for the annihilation and proverbial apocalypse of the world.
And how we're in the most poetic of crossroads at this juncture of the universe – where we can either choose to save or destroy the planet.
This debate isn't an opportunity to entitle ourselves. This is a debate to critically evaluate the influence of God and organised religion and the patternicity humans tend to observe. And whether these forces will play a role in the future of humanity... and if not, how much longer will they survive?
Because let's face it, we're only talking about humanity here.
The other species are considerably less interested in the subject.
As Harris so eloquently put it,
I'd like to end this with an excerpt from a Deepak Chopra story. At one of these panel discussions, during the Q&A round, this lovely man who resembles George Lucas comes up to the mic.
Guy: "Deepak. You stated before that all belief is a cover-up for insecurity. Right?"
Deepak: "Mhmm."
Guy: "Do you believe that?"
Deepak: "Yes."
Guy: "Thank you."
Relatively... uninteresting.
I woke up this morning and stumbled upon a TED talk by Michael Shermer. Michael is called a "debunker" because he spends his time investigating claims of UFO sightings and other supernatural phenomena. Like the grilled cheese sandwich of the virgin Mary that was sold for $28000 or you know, any faces or patterns people tend to see in otherwise uninteresting and dull things. He prefers to be referred to as a skeptic, and I suppose I agree, because all he's really doing is adopting a scientific and empirical method to approaching these miracles. He talks about 'strange' beliefs and how human beings have a tendency to look for patterns.
"The tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and non-meaningful noise."
It's an interesting talk and I am personally keen on any topics involving the principle of belief and factors that play into it... so my interest in this man was naturally piqued and I went to the website of the magazine Skeptic he started and came across this provocative title–
"Does God have a future?"
What made it particularly provocative to me was the fact that it involved a debate with Deepak Chopra! Now I don't know so much about Deepak, except that I won't read or encourage the reading (read: entertaining) of his material... but I do think he can provide a great perspective on the matters of spirituality or the new-age religion as one could call it, seeing as how he is such a highly revered man in the industry.
It started as a correspondence talk on CNN about afterlife, when Deepak decided to challenge Mr. Shermer to a debate in front of a live audience and I don't know about you, but this seemed like a terrific way to spend the rest of my afternoon. Here's a promo to the face-off: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lKyD8V3E3M.
It's five and a half minutes long and should give you a good premise to the entire soirée.
The URL to the 12 videos, each around 9 minutes is here: http://www.youtube.com/user/AtheistMediaBlog#grid/user/EAAE2D3FFB6BCCA8.
The debate had two sides to it. Michael Shermer and Sam Harris (also TED talker) on the side of science and skepticism, and Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston on the side of spirituality and a deeper consciousness. It was being held at Caltech and was bound to be an engaging discussion, no matter which side of the fence you sit on. Or even if you're an on-the-fence sort of person.
Now on the face of it, I must admit, I didn't know what to expect. My ignorance on the ways and oratory skills of Mr. Chopra and my agnostic stance on the topic in general had me favouring Michael and Sam from the start, but not entirely dismissing the proposition of Chopra and Houston coming out on top. Shermer seemed pragmatic but as we get into the debate, I found myself disappointed at his argumentative skills and his unfortunate "cop-outs", as Deepak rightly judged them. I suppose it was for lack of a better term, but using "woo-woo" and "fuzzy language" as a means to describe your opponent's argument is not giving much credibility to your own.
Sam Harris, on the other hand was a delight.
Initially I was a little skeptical about Sam, even though I didn't know very much about him... because he seemed to have a smug demeanor and I didn't want some self-righteous, condescending chap defending the likes of a stance that is already laced with rows of self-righteousness and condescension. But then, I suppose those qualities are inherent to a debate where one is arguing the existence of a higher power and you are aiming to refute their claim.
Au contraire, Sam Harris was well-spoken, polite and prolific and managed to seam words beautifully to elucidate his cause. There were times his mocking was less subtle, but for the most part, he was clever and tactful and crisp and his background in philosophy and PhD in neuroscience held him in good stead all through the debate.
Besides talk of oxytocin and dopamine, locality and nonlocality, quantum mechanics and a few other unmentionables, a layman ought to be able to follow this debate pretty smoothly.
1. The side of science aims to increase the influence it has on our day-to-day lives, along with our worldview so that sooner than later, the need for a dependency like organised religion is diminished. This is not to say that they are against religion, but rather, asking merely to reduce it to its core nature and purpose - a support group and a self-help tool.
At least this is what I took from it.
2. The side of spirituality is urging science and well, the world, to join the quest for one-ness and infinite consciousness and although the word consciousness perplexes the smartest of minds, one can't help but empathise with the pursuit of an understanding and overall goodness... and see that aside from the misrepresentation of science in their "explanations", they are doing no harm.
So then what is the harm, really, of having people like Deepak Chopra roam the metaphysical/phorical streets amongst the hordes of people looking to find a deeper meaning?
The harm is that the process leading to it is lined with an arrogance, suspiciously disguised as humility and service to a greater power... and the product is analogous to the fundamentalism inscribed in the forces of terror the world so evidently despises.
Again, this is what I gathered.
To summarise the debate, and I urge you to read these paragraphs carefully:
The science guys are scrutinising the spirit guys' arguments so as to expose what we can all speculate to be the future of God and whether people will, not should, eventually stop believing.
While the spirit guys are more interested in asking the science guys to support their claims so that they can, during the moments of the debate and thereafter, create a new understanding of God and consciousness – with the help of science.
On the surface this seems noble and idealistic, but I believe it has deeper implications of conceited and absurd aims of putting the ridiculous weight of revolutionising the entire world of spirituality on their shoulders.
And whose shoulders are these? The venerable Deepak Chopra is worth 80 million dollars.
I'd like you to take a minute to understand the implications of his net value.
And Jean Houston! Boy, she is just a champion of misdirection and really, a pitiful character who didn't belong in an intelligent dialogue like this. Don't get me wrong, she's very sweet and definitely someone who can tell excellent and unparalleled bedtime stories... but I mean, she's the oldest person on the panel and the wisdom she has accrued through her 72 years of experiences is quite visibly infected. She spent more time relaying century-old quotes and telling magnificent tales from her life than actually contributing to the argument.
Why Deepak chose her as his accomplice is only a testament to his own intelligence.
I'm tired of people talking about this being the most crucial and intense and deepest time the world has ever seen. I'm tired of this banter about humans being the enemy of the Earth and the bane of evolution and the cause for the annihilation and proverbial apocalypse of the world.
And how we're in the most poetic of crossroads at this juncture of the universe – where we can either choose to save or destroy the planet.
This debate isn't an opportunity to entitle ourselves. This is a debate to critically evaluate the influence of God and organised religion and the patternicity humans tend to observe. And whether these forces will play a role in the future of humanity... and if not, how much longer will they survive?
Because let's face it, we're only talking about humanity here.
The other species are considerably less interested in the subject.
As Harris so eloquently put it,
"The God that our neighbours believe in, is essentially an invisible person. He is a creator deity, who created the universe to have a relationship with one species of primate.Ridiculous. But very, very insightful.*smirks* Lucky us. *pauses* And he's got galaxy upon galaxy to attend to, but he's especially concerned with what we do, and he's especially concerned with what we do while naked."
I'd like to end this with an excerpt from a Deepak Chopra story. At one of these panel discussions, during the Q&A round, this lovely man who resembles George Lucas comes up to the mic.
Guy: "Deepak. You stated before that all belief is a cover-up for insecurity. Right?"
Deepak: "Mhmm."
Guy: "Do you believe that?"
Deepak: "Yes."
Guy: "Thank you."
Crisis In Faith (7th November 2010)
Lately I've begun to understand better why it is I like to write. And more so, I've begun to understand why my words mean so much to me. With each letter, it's as though I've made a commitment. Then I play it over and over and over again in my head so that with each go over, I add some more meaning to the words I chose to use until by the end of it, what I have left is a piece of my soul captured in time by syntax and semantics.
I wrote this and I hate it already. And I think that's the point.
We are what we pretend to be. And if all it's about is pretense and conviction, I'd like a blindfold please.
I wrote this and I hate it already. And I think that's the point.
We are what we pretend to be. And if all it's about is pretense and conviction, I'd like a blindfold please.
Grimacing at my own words, my speech is wearing thinSpiralling towards an inevitable fate,
I own no true confidence.
I know that doom and deference are matters of persuasion.
Convinced I need not convince myself any more,
I write in alliterations and I fail.
God, give me a weapon to fight this sloth
Give me a weapon to destroy myself so that perhaps I may respawn.
I hate being my own master
but I am unwilling to submit to you.
Oh cohesive contortionist
Oh rhetoric allusion
I know that this will end.
I know that this will end.
It is my crisis in faith.
An Open Letter To Indian Basketball (3rd November 2010)
I came across an article the official NBA website in a peculiar fashion. I was merely trying to play a quick catch-up since the season has started and at the bottom there was a terrific picture of Jordan shooting over Starks with the caption - "Manwani: My Favourite Moment".
The name struck me as unusual for an NBA columnist and seeing as I grew up watching the Bulls in the 90s, I clicked to find that I was on the NBA India page and unfortunately, that didn't say very much to me at the start.
Understandably, since basketball coverage in India has always been bleak - even now. The last post-season (09-10) wasn't given any importance and only the Conference Finals onwards were shown with any sort of regularity. To think that eager NBA fans in India will wake up at unearthly hours to make time for a 2 and a half hour spot on ESPN and then remorsefully have to turn the TV off since it's playing baseball or figure skating or some other such rot is preposterous. I remember feeling particularly frustrated more than a few times this season and I don't see how it makes any sense. I don't mean any disrespect to any other sport but there really must be a reservation for NBA playoff games, enough for them to be aired live for those who care. And I am confident you will agree - there are other people in this country who care about basketball more than the frivolous banter they play at 5 in the morning.
If anything, live sport should be given preference to re-runs.
Aside from this, the portrayal (in movies like Kuch Kuch Hota Hai and that other Hrithik movie and more recently, the blackberry suits ad), of basketball as a sport is ridiculous. The voice over and ad production is another reason to cringe but that wouldn't be relevant to the topic.
I could go on, but I think you see my point about why I might have felt slightly forlorn at the sight of an NBA India blog page and wondered who might be writing and further perpetuating this ugly image of such a wonderful sport in India now.
And then I read this article.
Needless to say, (and not to sound hoity-toity) I was very impressed! Manwani seemed to be very knowledgeable about the game and more importantly, the energy and the spirit of it. I enjoyed reading it and turned my attention to the other pieces he contributed and he has gained a new fan! If this is anything to go by, the level of awareness of basketball is sure to rise and I find myself eager to participate in any way possible.
I used to play very often but I'm afraid I don't hold the same fortitude as I did before. I know for a fact that there is tremendous talent in this country and there ought to be a way to harness it into an actual force to reckon with, the force I know we have the potential to be. This email seems rather lengthy now and to be honest, I had only come here to say hello and express my support. Being a writer myself and a basketball aficionado, I guess I got carried away :)
If you've taken the time to read this far, I want to say thank you again and I'll be sure to follow your work (already following your blogspot) and I wish you luck with your column(s).
Cheers!
-Varun Mukerji (Pune, India)
The name struck me as unusual for an NBA columnist and seeing as I grew up watching the Bulls in the 90s, I clicked to find that I was on the NBA India page and unfortunately, that didn't say very much to me at the start.
Understandably, since basketball coverage in India has always been bleak - even now. The last post-season (09-10) wasn't given any importance and only the Conference Finals onwards were shown with any sort of regularity. To think that eager NBA fans in India will wake up at unearthly hours to make time for a 2 and a half hour spot on ESPN and then remorsefully have to turn the TV off since it's playing baseball or figure skating or some other such rot is preposterous. I remember feeling particularly frustrated more than a few times this season and I don't see how it makes any sense. I don't mean any disrespect to any other sport but there really must be a reservation for NBA playoff games, enough for them to be aired live for those who care. And I am confident you will agree - there are other people in this country who care about basketball more than the frivolous banter they play at 5 in the morning.
If anything, live sport should be given preference to re-runs.
Aside from this, the portrayal (in movies like Kuch Kuch Hota Hai and that other Hrithik movie and more recently, the blackberry suits ad), of basketball as a sport is ridiculous. The voice over and ad production is another reason to cringe but that wouldn't be relevant to the topic.
I could go on, but I think you see my point about why I might have felt slightly forlorn at the sight of an NBA India blog page and wondered who might be writing and further perpetuating this ugly image of such a wonderful sport in India now.
And then I read this article.
Needless to say, (and not to sound hoity-toity) I was very impressed! Manwani seemed to be very knowledgeable about the game and more importantly, the energy and the spirit of it. I enjoyed reading it and turned my attention to the other pieces he contributed and he has gained a new fan! If this is anything to go by, the level of awareness of basketball is sure to rise and I find myself eager to participate in any way possible.
I used to play very often but I'm afraid I don't hold the same fortitude as I did before. I know for a fact that there is tremendous talent in this country and there ought to be a way to harness it into an actual force to reckon with, the force I know we have the potential to be. This email seems rather lengthy now and to be honest, I had only come here to say hello and express my support. Being a writer myself and a basketball aficionado, I guess I got carried away :)
If you've taken the time to read this far, I want to say thank you again and I'll be sure to follow your work (already following your blogspot) and I wish you luck with your column(s).
Cheers!
-Varun Mukerji (Pune, India)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)