Critique

Critique

So important

Yet unwanted by many

For self-delusions of grandeur

It can shatter

Forever.

An Open Letter

This is but the first little letter in a series of open letters that I thought to compose to send to those elite few; those colourful characters who make our day to day life the hell that it is quite often.

Firstly in line:

The Cool Dude, or Mast Banda or whatever else he fancies himself as.

Dear Mr Dude,

Your are one of the most glaringly prominent members of modern society. So (in)famous are you that there is not one day when the newspaper's aren't filled with tales of your latest exploitations... er, I mean exploits. From eve-teasing to molestation and even rape, you do it all; and why shouldn't you indeed? After all, judging by the effort you put into wooing a girl with your cat-calls and comments (which some uncharitable folks call obscene) you do deserve some reward; and if it involves bashing up some lazy sod who doesn't do things your 'manly' way then all the better you'd say. Of course, the public wouldn't always approve of your activities, but fear not; our netas and assorted officials are ever ready to defend your acts. That is what we elect them and contribute to their salaries for anyway.

In fact, if I were a neta I would surely to speak on your behalf to the public (after all, isn't that what neta's do?) and I would plead: Please forgive these oafs (its a term of endearment) their minor indiscretions after all  it wasn't really their fault; the girl was actually seducing them and putting lewd ideas into their heads.

She was dressed in a burqa you say? Doesn't change a thing, haven't you heard that famous Govinda song "Ankhiyon Se Goli Mare". They never even so much as glanced at the poor chappie? Well they must have employed mind tricks: you see, the very femininity of their nature corrupted the innocent Dude's mind, its like a force field spread over a vast area around them. Its the reason for all these regrettable but 'understandable' incidents and if not for that he wouldn't have even touched her or even dreamt of beating up her male companions.

You and you buddies yourselves can tell us how you slave away in a gym or a pub or both, for hours on an end every single day in the hopes of polishing your powerful charisma (read: chauvinism) and wooing skills (read: eve-teasing) in the hopes of snaring one (un)fortunate gal in a sort of relationship and how these modern girls have become so callous in their disregard of your feelings (or lack thereof) that they are all but asking for it. You would probably tell us how you were just having a merry time drinking away to glory when that evil seductress came along and 'forced' you to outrage her modesty, she was probably 'asking for it' each and every time you've done your (evil) deeds, and I bet those conservatively dressed demure girls are the worst of the lot! Seducing you so subtly, not even flaunting their bodies like most!

All in all, you probably feel rather justified in your acts. After all it never was your fault, really; plus with the end of the world coming one can't really grudge a guy some fun, eh?

Well it seems I can.

For some reason I feel the need to object to all this. Your justifications, your innocence and the girl's perpetual guilt- they all ring hollow in my ears.

Yes, maybe I'm a bit strange, maybe I'm not a proper Dilli-waala like you manly dudes are, maybe I'm just a wimp but  somehow feel that your activities aren't justified in the least and the only reward you deserve is a nice long jail sentence, maybe a healthy dose of thrashing with it too, after all, haven't we all heard the saying: "laaton ke bhoot baaton se nahi maante".

Now now, don't glare at me like that. I'm just voicing my opinion, I do have the right to free speech, as long as it doesn't hurt any political big-shot's or his/her family's sentiments, and I don't think that I've done either, not directly at least. You see; people like you and people who think like you, despite the fact that they may have been a victim themselves have had a lot to say about the issue (like a certain Didi from the land of Rosogullas). You're always up and about reaffirming the guilt of the girl and how really early marriages and banning of chowmein can help improve the law and order situation so I felt that enough was enough, we foolish people should also have our say and thus I dared speak up.

The thing is: I don't really believe that the girl is as guilty as you make her out to be, nor do I believe that chowmein has much to do with it. What then is the cause you ask? Well, you. You and your mentality and your insecurity. You feel insulted that girls may think of themselves as equals, you feel slighted you see a girl actually doing something with her life while you sit rotting your away and you feel outraged that your brawn doesn't get the adulation you feel it deserves. That is what I believe. I believe that you're so petty that rather than to make something out of yourself you begrudge others their lives and rather than learn to respect a girl and treat her right you'd go and force yourself upon some unwilling girl and then, instead of owning up to what you did, like a proper man would, you blame it all on her. All in all you've become a total failure, an empty headed, empty hearted ruthless predator who only seeks momentary relief from his own pain at the cost of deep hurt and pain to others at the cost of ruination of someone's life and dreams.

But then again, you're not really the one to blame. Your failure is but partly your fault for you only failed because we failed you. Your parents or guardians failed to raise you with the right outlook on life and women, your neighbourhood failed to set you right when you started to go wrong, and we, the citizens of the nation, failed you by not teaching you to respect the rules, to fear the law. We failed because we taught you to laugh at the law rather than honour it.

Sincerely Ashamed to be a Delhiite

Akash Kapur

Atheists Demystified (to a slight extent)

One of the most common topics these days in forums all over the net is atheism: its rise and the 'threat' it poses to the world. And very often I find these forum threads populated with comments and ideas that are hopelessly misinformed. Tired by all that useless chatter out there I decided to post my own little piece of 'useless chatter' out here away from the clashing voices of the debating multitude to help demystify the often misunderstood Atheist and also to caution those overly zealous Atheists who are about as dangerous as any fanatical religious extremist. Of course many other people have probably written more about this topic and in a much better fashion that I, but still I can't resist adding my own two bits, perhaps just for the sake of convincing myself that I too have contributed to this vast muddle of a discussion.

The first thing most people must get clear in their heads is that atheism is NOT a religion in fact, the word atheism is very misleading in this respect as it gives the impression of being a strict order, very much like a religious one, which it is not, therefore I'll try not to use that term too much. The general belief among theists who haven't had much exposure to the atheistic world is that atheists have a fixed doctrine and that they are but members of a different religion of sorts, an anti-religion religion if you will. One would think that this oxymoronic sentence itself would give them pause and make them rethink, yet for some reason it doesn't. But anyway, what I want to stress out here is that atheists DO NOT share some common doctrine which has to be obeyed to the letter, we just have certain beliefs that we've come to accept after rationally analysing all the evidence available to us and arriving at our own independent conclusions.

Of course, the facts being what they are, the beliefs of most atheists will be strikingly similar, but yet again, that does not mean that there is a common doctrine, just that they've seen what is to be seen and since the world is the same to everyone (as in the general world) the conclusions will also be more or less similar. But they'll have their differences too. Some will believe in the Multiverse theory, some won't, some will believe in the Super String Theory, some won't. But then again these beliefs are not fixed, if one theory is proven somehow the others will be discarded as we decide our beliefs rationally. We believe that nothing can travel faster than light, but if we do find a particular situation under which this is possible, we'll revise our beliefs and this is one major difference between religious beliefs and the scientific beliefs promoted by atheists.

Religious beliefs are based on blind faith. There is never an attempt at proving or verifying anything pertaining to them as one cannot question these faiths for doing such will be blasphemy or hurtful to religious sentiments which can be perilous to the well being of the curious soul, while in science beliefs are constantly questioned and the only thing being hurt is the ego of some scientist which doesn't make for much of a threat in comparison.

However I digress. The gist of what I wanted to say is that an atheist is, more often than not, open to new ideas and change. He thinks things through and the true atheist never shirks at the thought of changing his beliefs if new evidence demands it.

In fact, if a rational atheist or agnostic is shown irrefutable proof of God's existence he/she will convert immediately, as opposed to those people who are strictly opposed to any such beliefs to such an extent that it has become one of the most unchangeable tenets of their lives. The latter will resist all change and theirs is not the rational atheism that I follow, but the irrational fanatic one which is no better than the exteremist form of religion that many people preach.

Another point I'd like to clear up is the belief that Atheism has been the cause for some of the greatest tragedies like World War II and also the discrimination against religious people in North Korea. For the World War II point all I'd like to say is: READ UP ON THE FACTS!

The second World War was not fought for the idea that there is no god, it was fought because of hurt German sentiments after severe and unnecessary humiliation by the smug Allied Forces in World War I , it was fought because of an irrational hatred of Jews in the mind of one charismatic, fanatical man, it was fought because of a belief in the race superiority of the 'Aryan' race and to establish a superior world power.

As for the discrimination in North Korea. Read up on The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engel, read up some good scholar's work on the topic, try and understand the gist of what communism is all about and then you'll realise that the reason for persecution of religious people in North Korea is not because the state is atheist. No, its because the communist belief is that all men are equal and that spreads divisiveness and inequality and hence must be curbed and as communists are bound to be rather stern with these issues as compared to us non-communist people, the punishment for being religious in a communist nation can often be very painful, even terminally so. In short the state of North Korea is atheistic because it is communist, i.e. it doesn't ban religions and get equality for all as a by product instead it believes in equality (of a hypocritical kind perhaps, but equality all the same) and hence bans religions, thus making its atheism a by product.

Also before bandying about the atheism promotes violence line I'd appreciate it if the person promoting that belief looks back on to his/her own religion's past and even at the present state.

So basically the average atheist you see is not a bogeyman to be feared, he's just another human being who simply doesn't share your beliefs.

Of course, there are some who take their atheism to a new level and become the very sort of people from the non-believing crowd that I detest in the group of believers: extremists.These people believe that all religions are outdated and should be done away with and that this must be enforced by some means (preferably martial force as per some complete imbeciles) that brooks no argument and ensures complete eradication of religion. They want complete eradication of religion by force which in my eyes makes them no better than those who kill, torture and maim others in the name of religion, both encourage/practice terrorism and the world is better off without either.

I too believe that religions are stifling and create unnecessary divides, at least in their current interpretations. I believe that we should stop placing a child under the tag of 'x' religion just because the parents belong to the same, I believe that the child should be raised free from all pressure to study all the data available on religions, on science and as per his/her own conclusions decide whether he/she believes in a god or not. But these changes will come gradually they cannot be enforced by forceful means doing so will not only be fascist in the extreme and harmful to our freedoms in general but will also make these religions rallying points for people opposed against fascism and will make them the beacons of hope that stood out against the 'fascist atheists' thus leading to a more powerful resurgence of these religions, an end that these extremists surely don't want.

A very good example given by Richard Dawkins (to the best of my knowledge) is that of the Greek Mythos and of Norse Mythology. The Greek Mythos was so powerful and influential that even the Romans adopted this Mythos and it remained a powerful and influential force for a very long duration of time (whether more than or less than Christianity, I do not know) but now no one worships even a single deity from the pantheon of Greek/Roman Gods. As for the Norse mythology, their mighty Thor is not a deity worshiped anymore, he's more of a comic superhero these days. These myths as we call them now were religions in their own right, but they died off slowly and so too will our current batch of religions if given time (and not strengthened by foolish acts of extremism on a non-believers part) and we'll soon enter a future where there is no more blood letting and violence due to different opinions about a creator or interpretations of what the said creator did or demanded of our species, a future where there is no 'hurt religious sentiment' to stall progress and scientific development... minus a violent transition.

P.S. Of course, I know that my dream of a peaceful future is probably too idealistic of me, but at least I can hope for a future where friends and acquaintances don't end up as enemies just because one group believes in Text A while other in Text B.

They can have more logical reasons for fighting like... who's footing the bill :P

EDIT (1/03/15): However, a recently read blogpost (I read it on the phone and so the link will have to be added later) shows that even in 'atheism' these days there is a almost religious vein of thinking. The post was titled 'How Dawkins got pwned' or somthing along those lines and raised certain interesting points about one of the most outspoken (Christian?) atheists in the world. That apart seeing how entrenched the idea of religion is in our society I doubt we shall ever be rid of it. It may change and morphose into new forms. The gods of the current major religions may merge into one confusingly jumbled entity or may vanish altogether to be replaced by the religion of technology with people religiously following, working towards, and utilising the latest technology upgrades. For all you know, we may end up with a techno(-theo-)cratic society; somewhat like that of the planet Ix from the Dune universe; wherein science and technology are the sole (twinned?) deities whom we seek to appease. We may end up transitioning from the current set of abstract, metaphysical religions to a religion of science envisioned (?) in Asimov's Foundation saga, as well as other works by authors such as Neal Asher.

After all, we humans have had a love for the mystical and many a teams long for a hierarchy wherein we 'know our place'. A 'religious' structure would offer both. That being said, I'd prefer a pure technocratic society compared to one with theocratic influences, but I'll probably be long dead before we as a species reach that stage (assuming we don't kill ourselves off or make our planet unfit for ourselves to live on before that) so I guess to me it doesn't matter, except as an intellectual problem.

Truth and Beauty

The purest Truth and Beauty

Reside not in long winded statements

Or displays of complexity

Of technique and skills

But in the lost art of simplicity.

I don’t think this piece needs any elaboration. Yet still I’ll add my two bits for a (most probably) unnecessary explanation, or elaboration, if you may, of the idea in the verse above.

Most people these days try to make things looks really, really complex. If they have something to say, they dress it up in long winded statements that can drag on for paragraphs which in turn can crawl on for pages and pages filled with utter nonsense and drivel, all to say just one little thing which could have better been said in a line or two. Many artists make their works look dauntingly complex all in the attempt to show off their highly developed skills and that in itself makes them loose favour in my eyes.

Not to say that those pieces aren’t beautiful too, they are, but they pale in comparison to any piece that on first glance conveys to the viewer a sense of simple beauty no matter how complex the technique and arduous the task of producing it may have been. What I particularly enjoy are those pieces that have an almost organic fluidity to them, those where the eye flows over the image or the sculpture or canvas rather that jump, those that convey their meaning in one go, drawing one in to then notice the subtleties that are testament to the artist’s genius. Those pieces are my favourites.

The same is in the matter of truth, the more long-winded your statement, the lesser the hopes of the essence of it being conveyed faithfully.

After all, a long essay of a joke is infinitely less impactful than a witty two-liner that gets the essence of the situation.

O MLA! Why you no legislate?

A witty, tongue in cheek video prepared by the well-known Indian newspaper ‘The Hindu’ shows a typical college classroom with the stern old professor standing at the board and announcing a topic for a debate in the class and declares which side is to speak for and which will speak against the topic. So far so good, there are no foreseeable problems that could possibly arise, other than high volumes and higher tempers of course.

Then the gentleman makes the mistake of saying that he expects ‘proper parliamentary behaviour’ during the discussion.

How is that a mistake you ask? Well, move a few seconds further into the video and you realise why. Many will probably find the video extremely funny, I admit I sure did enjoy that completely bewildered and flustered expression on the professor’s face as his class erupted in complete pandemonium, but like the best of the stories from the genre of satire, along with tickling the audience’s funny bone it also highlights an important problem in or country today: the un-parliamentary behaviour of our ‘representatives’.

Not only do these modern day Bourbons, as a columnist for the very same paper titled them, live in their fantasy worlds where everyone adores them and use their power and influence to ensure this fantasy doesn’t get disrupted (read misuse of state judicial machinery) but they also feel that they are completely above any law, regulation or even code of conduct and can do whatever they please, whenever they please; and governing and the functioning of the state apparatus be damned. Passing legislations, ensuring that the parliament is actually running are but secondary, nay, tertiary objectives for them if even that. They’d rather engage in heckling and abusing the opposition party MP’s or anyone who isn’t ‘one of them’ and, in demonstration of their love for brawling, turn any session of parliament into a slug-fest whenever they please.

While the world is in recession and our nation is struggling to stay above the water and keep its economy floating our dearest ‘leaders’ are busy getting the police to lock up people who offend them, creating a ruckus about corruption claims with respect to the opposing parties to fend of attention from the charges they themselves are facing and being indecisive about anything that has to do with legislation or governance. It is as if they are unaware of the global situation.

Of course another explanation is that they are probably reassuring themselves that we’re clocking 5.5% on our GDP (not sure of the precise figures, so please point out any mistakes) and that having so much in the way of resources and man-power and skills we can’t possibly be in any danger of sliding backwards and ending up in the dump. They probably believe that the threat of economic status downgrade is but a fictional threat, like those mommy used to make up about boogeymen and ghosts who kidnap naughty little kids, to get them to do something [good] which they’d rather not do, namely: legislate.

Of Cynics

Those cynical

Due to past experience

Perhaps should be indulged,

Yet those cynical for no reason

To them I say:

What the hell?

I guess that should explain the reason for the conflict in my mind to some extent. On one hand I'm a bit of a cynic due to my own few personal experiences and other exposure to the outside world via news, books and the second best teacher ever: other’s experience; while on the other I'm one who reproaches those cynics at my age who think they know a lot (hence I reproach myself).

Strange thing is, I feel justified in both: being a cynic and reproaching myself for being one. So I guess I have a diluted version of a split personality. :P

Oh, and one more thing:

Poems, people often feel,

Ought to rhyme

And many poems do.

But this little poem

And the one before it

Don’t.

Oh, and I have also posted this on my Deviantart  profile. You can check this, and other writings by me on that site right here: http://akash21593.deviantart.com/gallery/27712143

Timely Thoughts

Sitting in the dhaba outside the campus I can’t help but feel a bit restless and irritated as time ticks by while I wait for my order to arrive. It’s become a new affliction of sorts that I seem to suffer from. Some days I can sleep all day, doing nothing, almost as though I’m in a state of hibernation without a worry. But some days I can’t sit still and tend to get terribly annoyed and frustrated if I can’t find something to do. Compounding this problem is the wide area of interest that I’ve cultivated over time and the unruly chaotic mass of the variety of ideas and techniques I’ve been planning to implement in each of my varied interests. Add to this the varied deterring circumstances, back-to-back classes and that nefarious, unwelcome guest called the ‘writer’s block’ and you have a recipe for a nuclear meltdown of me wee little head.

So I twitch and shift continuously in my seat thinking about why I’m afflicted by this strange new ailment and I suddenly realise, maybe it’s because all those quotes, articles and books have finally penetrated the dense, thick fog of silliness and general idiocy that surround my brain like a protective blanket, preserving the innermost cogs that drive my craziness from corruption and corrosion from any external agents and have begun their sinister work.

Perhaps for the first time I truly appreciate the quote that my English language professor, Dr. L Kavitha Nair has displayed on the walls of her cabin. It goes somewhat like this “To put days into life is ageing but to put life into days in living.” And perhaps I now appreciate why Richard Dawkins stresses the fact that contrary to what people say to discredit atheistic people, that their lack of belief in divinity is but an excuse to shirk the responsibility of living a good life, the fact that you don’t believe in an afterlife, in some continuation of existence or in rebirth means you have this one chance, just one go at doing what you want to do and doing it right, this one chance to play whatever role you choose and actually making a positive impact, for there is no other life for you to repent for your sins and balance the scales of misdeeds of one life in another life or realm. Talking in terms of biology, he explains how that one sperm in a million that got through and made us may just as easily have been another out of those same millions, and thus being the lucky one out of those million possible people to actually exist, we have a greater responsibility to live up to our true potential.

I prefer putting it in slightly easier to understand terms. The responsibility that he says we are supposed to live up to gets multi-plied manifold when you consider the millions of people out there in the world who don’t have the same chances and choices as you do, to live their lives to their fullest potential. Forget freedom, many of these unfortunate souls don’t even get a chance to live due to diseases, wars and numerous other causes that run them into the ground. Very few amongst them find a chance to be truly happy, even for a brief moment in time.

In light of all this, I feel that moping and wasting one’s life away is not just an act of wanton self-destruction, it is gross negligence bordering on the criminal and an insult to the freedoms that are you possess. Freedoms that millions, nay, billions can only dream of. Not that I’m expecting every one of you to become the next Mother Teresa or Van Gogh or Mozart. No, expecting that from everyone, or from anyone for that matter, would be just plain idiocy. Instead what I request is that we make our lives better, that we actually utilise what little freedoms we have instead of leaving them on a shelf as a display piece to show off to those who don’t possess them. Live your life to the fullest, become a musician, become an artist, a doctor, a lawyer, just another worker in some big company or be whatever else you may wish to be. Do whatever you wish to do, be it ordinary, mundane tasks or something different and exciting. Whatever you become, whatever you do, utilising your freedoms and your skills is up to you. The only thing I’d ask is at the end of your life you shouldn’t have reason look back and think with regret those thoughts starting with “If only…”. For even the simple act of actually living as opposed to ageing will be a sort of a tribute to those who don’t have a chance.

Perhaps it is these thoughts spinning through my head that now war with my off and on, depressed lethargy, that get me so keyed up and bouncy all day. Perhaps one day I’ll learn to control these thoughts and channel all this jittery, frustrated eagerness and annoyance into something constructive, use this as a fuel to drive me on further down the paths I choose to take.

"I think therefore I am" ... or am I?

“I think therefore I am” quipped Descartes all those hundreds of years ago, and is now condemned to being quoted (and misquoted) again and again in arguments/debates/theses pertaining to the question of existence and reality and many other similar fancy hoity-toity topics where one of the conceited philosopher wannabes finds an opening, especially when someone wants to sound enigmatic and knowledgeable.

But paradoxically the more I think, the less I am, or rather, the less I seem to be. I know, it seems really confusing and contradictory, especially when one refers to the opening quote, but think about it, I mean really think.

The more one thinks about one’s existence, the origin of the universe and other such nonsensical stuff about which our knowledge is little enough for us to feel confident enough in our ignorance so as to engage others in debate; even if the other is just a contrary splinter-self, separated from the main self like in those multiple/split personality disorder cases, who likes to contradict everything the other self, or selves if the subject is a far-gone case, say or believe just for the heck of it, or because they conflict with its own set of beliefs; the more the number of possible reasons and explanations one can offer for the existence of the universe, ranging from the tired old argument of a supreme being who in his complete belief in our capability to survive our own destructive nature created an entire universe for us to occupy steadily over a span of time and is always watching over us (and its more moderate versions) and the deistic version where some chappie created this little universe (but not especially for us only) and now is snoozing away (or observing from a distance) to equally crazy beliefs like our universe being but a simulation program or even a sim-game being run by some higher dimensional beings on their super-duper-computers, like the popular game SimCity only this’ll be more like Sim-Universe and will involve more awesome hardware and possibly higher dimensions, or that we’re all just figments of imagination in the dreams of some higher dimensional being and so on and so forth. Do note that each reason raises a yet more important question: “What caused/led-to/created the random event/being/super-duper computer which created this universe/simulation of a universe which we reside in?" 

So, ranging from the ‘we-are-real-beings-in-every-sense-and-in-every-dimension’ to the ‘we’re-just-figments-of-something’s-imagination’ or the even more unthinkable ‘we’re-just-virtual-characters’, albeit virtual characters with higher thinking capabilities (which one could blame on more advanced coding and algorithms), each explanation is just passing the buck as we still don't know the universe started, sure it was created lets say, but who created the creators or if it was just the result of a random event, what triggered it?And so the questions go on and on. Still, assume that one of these explanations has the potential to solve this cosmic riddle, now what proof do we have that our point of view is correct? Each explanation has an almost equal amount of concrete evidence in favour as well as against it: none...  make that almost none, for the sake of accuracy.

So depending on which view seems more convincing to you, you could be more or less real than you were at the beginning of the long-winded-fatuous thought processes that brought you to this point. Or if you found multiple arguments equally convincing you could very possibly existing in multiple levels of realism at the same time, a thought which, if pursued further, could very well shred to pieces what little sanity you lay claim to faster than food disappears down the gullet of dear little Daisy, my dog; though bitch is the grammatically correct term yet cannot be used due to social taboos and stuff, an issue I may write on at length later.

Digressions apart, another thought that one must consider is the fact that most terms we use are but relative. Time is relative to whatever reference a person/specie is using for their convenience, the ease of climbing up a staircase is relative not just to age but fitness as well (a fact proven by a few septuagenarians I know whose ability to climb multiple flights of stairs would put most of my college mates to shame), the obviousness of the fatuous nature of most debates, particularly philosophical ones, is relative, the relativity of an object/occurrence is relative and thus even reality is but relative. Compared to a comic book character or a simulated character in a game we’re probably pretty real, compared to some higher dimensional being with a different sense of perspective we may be nothing more than stick figures.

Thus in the end the only conclusion one can safely draw is that reality just is. The entire idea of debating the concept of reality and seeing how real we are and if we truly exist and other such high-fi philosophical topics is truly fatuous, conceited even if one pretends that one has the one true answer to these conundrums.

So after all this heavy thinking the one modification I’d make to Descartes famous quote is “I think therefore I realise that I may be or may not be real and that it all comes down to a question of which theory of the universe’s existence, and hence my own existence, is true and that the lack of proof in favour of any particular theory can but lead one to the conclusion that this entire question is but an futile exercise in philosophical thought and that I just am”, or in short, “ I think, therefore I am”, or rather, “I just am”.

Now if you've reached this far in the article you've probably realised what a farce this is, albeit a rather high level and thought provoking and a bit moderately well thought-through farce. But then again most meta-physical philosophical thoughts and theses are but farces to some extent (note: I’m only referring to meta-physics) Anyway, for being such faithful readers and for suffering through this pseudo-intellectual piece of mine you deserve a reward. So go treat yourselves to a toffee or an ice cream if your mind feels really boggled.

The Rat Race

Rats chase rats in an endless loop, and self-righteous posers, hypocrites that they are, discretely stoop to wretched, rotten means to gain advantage all the while preaching their fatuous righteousness from their pedestals standing high above the rest of the crowd upon a pile of their own rubbish and garbage that lays claim to the title of ‘serious thought’ but is nothing more than a haphazard collection of flatulent ideas based on superstitions and prejudices dating back not just to the medieval ages but even further back to the time before the invention of these pretentious modern religions when humans worshipped fire and lightning and believed that the stars were the droplets of spilt milk from a god’s glass and that the sun revolved around the earth, propelled by a heavenly chariot.

What is more surprising is that the more flatulent and stupid the ideas the stronger is the conviction of their truth in the minds of those unfortunate sods who actually believe it, so much so that the most stupidest of ideas have the staunchest of supporters, supporters who won’t be swayed by any argument or proof, scientific or otherwise, even when the contradiction of their beliefs comes up and slaps them in the face. Sad thing is that such people are very often in the majority, or in positions that ensure that even their being a minority will cause them no major inconvenience, in fact, more often than not this causes a major inconvenience to the majority instead.

Almost makes one lose faith in the human faculties of thought, even in human society as such, for clear thinking people are indeed very few. Even I for one may not count in the crowd of those who can see through most mumbo-jumbo and can truly win this rat race by the only means possible, a means that not many people even bother considering: to get out of it.

Hello

Well, thought I'd first pop in and say hello to whoever has enough free time on his/her hands to actually be viewing this blog and also give them fair warning as to the content of this page.

Warning first; the posts you shall see herein will deal with the varied topics and themes ranging from the most abstract and frivolous themes to the heavier and more philosophical-ish stuff but all with a healthy dose of humour or just regular weirdness that should make it more palatable to your fine sensibilities. But if your sensibilities are too fine (say you're touchy on the topics of religion, or some other similar stuff) well, stay well away, or if you can;;t resist, don't curse me excessively (the usual little bit is ok) for you HAVE been warned, and try to respect the views of anyone else who by mistake happens to post a comment voicing their own opinions.

And before I forget altogether, here comes the fulfilment of the primary objective of this post: Hello!