thinking...

The Idea Inception

2011-02-17T20:18:00.001-08:00

Intuitive_yin: So what's creativity again?

Logical_yang: Its ability to create something new.

Intuitive_yin: Something 'new' ?

Logical_yang: Yes, I mean something from the scratch, right from the bottom of it- the new idea.

Intuitive_yin: How can an idea be absolutely new?

Logical_yang: Why not? new ideas have ventured minds of great people all the time, that's how great inventions are made.

Intuitive_yin: But the idea, even the newest one is always inspired from external factors. Many times as apparent as just by an observation, Newton's Gravity for example was from an apple falling.

Logical_yang: Well, before Newton, people saw objects falling, nobody cared. But Newton evolved complete theory out of it.

Intuitive_yin: He sure did, nevertheless, falling apple was the inception of the idea. Without the observation of falling objects, he might have never did anything about gravity.

Logical_yang: Well, Kekule invented Benzene ring while day-dreaming? He has to be original.

Intuitive_yin: Dreaming is more like a thinking on a subconscious level, even that might have been inspired. Kekule day-dreamed about Snake biting its own tail. The Benzene ring idea in this case could have clearly been inspired from an external stimulus. He knew about snakes for sure, he knew that snakes bite things. What if snakes bites it own tail? thats not even a new idea. The symbol of Uroborus (snake biting its tail) is an ancient symbol depicting circularity or cyclacity of nature.

Logical_yang: Well, forget Kekule, what about guys who solved great mysteries of nature. How about Einstein?

Intuitive_yin: Well, he sure did some of the newest stuff of his times. But he was a problem solver. For a given exact problem, coming up with a solution is not exactly a new idea, is it? I mean even Einstein did not sit down at his study table saying "today I will think of some new idea" and came up with new theories.

Logical_yang: But, while solving problems, he has to come-up with new ideas. Else he would have stuck up at the same point like everyone else.

Intuitive_yin: New solutions or new ideas still have to "inspired" from somewhere. How can they suddenly appear in mind out of nowhere. There has to be an stimulus. He must have been imaginative enough to provoke an association of the problem to larger number of leading threads, which contributed to the solution of the problem. But those threads may still be coming from some sort of lead- a link derived from the problem itself. He was intelligent enough to figure out the correct association, hence the solution.

Logical_yang: What about painters, poets, sculptures, musicians, they create new artwork all the time. That definitely should count as new ideas.

Intuitive_yin: Art-work is clearly an expression of the already existing idea. Its an emotion by the artist expressed in the respective forms. The emotion, again is the consequence of external reflection on consciousness.

Logical_yang: I don't know, We should ask a psychologist may be.

Intuitive_yin: I am not sure even a psychologist can help here.

Logical_yang: Why not?

Intuitive_yin: Understanding the origin of idea at the level of consciousness utilizing the same faculty of consciousness, would be impossible. Its same old recursion- trying to see the map while being in the map, trying to sit on your own shoulders.

Logical_yang: I don't believe that Philosophical stuff, but if you believe that then why did you ask me about creativity in the first place?

Intuitive_yin: I was just messing around. Got to go .. bye.

Logical_yang: Crap....

PS- btw the idea of this post is inspired from the movie Inception :)

The "enlightened" saint, the "about to die" junkie and the "nobel-winning" physicist.

2010-03-31T10:30:00.000-07:00

This conversation is about present ways of science and what may have been wrong, before you judge me as a reactionary, please give a thought to this conversation…

Saint: So did you feel it?

Junkie: yeah, it was really different, everything around me changed.

Saint: So, we know the answer, but don't know the question?

Junkie: I guess.

Saint: So what did you feel?

Junkie: Well, 0.2 mg of LSD and I was high... It’s hard to explain, first the images started to blur, colours and shapes were suddenly more important than the spatial relationship and time. The time stopped flowing and there was a constant and perennial present rather than the future or past.
I could not agree or disagree to the feeling but it simply “was”, and there was no alternative. I was in a different world, it felt like I can see everything, moment by moment in its entirety. It was like a miracle.

Saint: All that is strikingly similar to the feeling that we have when we reach ultimate point in meditation. There is constant feeling of perennial happiness- as described by “sacchidanand” in Hindu myth and “Zen Koan” in Chinese.

Junkie: It seemed my blocked mind was suddenly open, and I could see the universe in entirety.

Saint: To enable us to live, the brain and nervous system eliminates unessential information from the totality. Psychedelics remove those restrictions; your feelings are justified.

Junkie: So taking psychedelics and being high is a shortcut to Nirvana?

Saint: May be, but shortcuts are not recommended (smiles). Meditation is the way where we achieve to remove those restrictions from mind by practising extreme control. It’s the tough way, but ensures that you‘ll live longer as compared to taking dopes (smiles).

Physicist enters. He had a bad day ... really pissed off…

Physicist: There are no constants in this universe. As soon as we start settling up with some thing, they will again come with some bull and cock theory... now they say that protons are made up of quarks. So there are further divisions… more subatomic particles… What a mess…
First Dalton said atom can not be divided, and then Rutherford came up with experiment showing divisions of atoms... fair enough… but now the developments of quarks suggests laws of conservation of mass will not hold anymore. I am done with physics.

Saint: I never agreed with the way in which the particle physics is going. They keep finding new rules. They are trying to understand the universe in framework which is just not correct. So every time some unexplained phenomenon occurs they change the entire framework to explain that… invent new dimensions to make the math work… And they call it revolution. Logic may not be the right way, may be physicist can use some intuition… (smile)

Physicist: You remind me of Chaos theory and fractals- another branch of physics and maths- really popular in some factions of research.

Saint: isn’t that about recursively detailed images?

Physicist: Yeah, patterns under patterns till infinity- The Koch curve, the Mandelbrot set, the Julia set… its all been well documented.

Junkie: hey... I see something similar when I am high.

Physicist: Really? What do you see?

Junkie: I see patterns… everything breaks down into infinite patterns. Similar shapes inside shapes extending to infinity till they are so small that I cant see them.

Physicist: That’s strange because fractals are mathematically defined shapes.

Saint: That’s the mistakes science is doing, trying to theorise everything and convert it into a logical consistency. But real world has no consistency, there are no constants. Trying to understand the universe based on the formulae is like saying that hey I am trying to find the exact perimeter of the Australia.

Physicist: What’s wrong with the perimeter of Australia, you can always measure the coastline.

Saint: …but not exact coastline, at max you can break into geometrical shapes and find the sum of all perimeter of all the shapes- line, arcs etc. But again when you magnify individual shapes ... more shapes will come.

Physicist: That’s where fractals come in picture, I guess.

Saint: That’s what I believe, Chaos is the real answer to the question and it’s not logic that tells me that but its the just ... intuition… I have experienced it one of my deep sittings.

Physicist: I don’t know… So now even a junkie is more learned than me because he can “see” the “reality” of universe when he is high, because he can see fractals. Phewww….

Junkie: Told you … you gotta try drugs (smiles).

Saint: I guess we have the question, that we had answer for.

Junkie: You are right… understanding universe.

Saint: Yeah, its about everything, question is what is the truth, what is this universe, do we even need to understand it, what if we found the real answer, then what?

Physicist: Then what? You mean what if find we find the reality of this universe? Are you crazy? That has been the aim of particle physics ever since the science started. That will change everything.

Saint: Greatest of saints have already been there, the ultimate reality of the universe, the nature of the things from their root. Hindu and Chinese philosophy is full of such experiences.

Physicist: Well, can you explain that ultimate experience and their vision of universe to me?

Saint: But it’s not the nature of the things that these things can be explained. As chinese says-“One who knows cannot speak, and one who speaks does not know.”

Physicist: It’s a nice trick; you are skipping the most important part and claiming that you know it.

Saint: (smiles) Well, suppose I “explain” a joke to you, will you laugh? You will not. You have to listen and understand it for yourself, then and only then you will have a natural laughter. You listen to it, and then in a flash it makes sense and then that sudden moment of “enlightenment” will make you laugh. It’s the same thing with Nirvana, it cannot be explained, it has to be felt and experienced by your own. No-one can tell you the true nature of universe; you have to experience it on your own.

Saint pauses… and continues...

Well in today’s world people want to understand the true nature of universe, because they want nobel prizes, its career to them. Sadly, it doesn’t work like that even if CERN proves Higgs or disproves Higgs it doesn’t matter, because just as this discovery will change present rules and standards after 100 years new theories will come, new framework will be developed, more surprises with no guarantee of true
“formula” for universe.

Physicist: I guess, I am not getting novel prize… Am I ? (smiles)

Saint and junkie: yeah I guess…

Physicist: Nevertheless… (smiles) got to make it in lab 8:00 AM sharp bye …

2010-03-12T04:20:00.000-08:00

the eyes...
they say is a mirror...
even a briefest of its contact will lure secrets of her mind...

so I looked and looked again ...

there it was... the look in the eyes which could make one dead...

or alive in completeness...

and just when I thought I read them correct...

it failed me ...

or she failed herself ...

I chose to ...

2010-02-11T07:39:00.000-08:00

Just listen to it again .. smith has a point...

Smith: why Mr Anderson why why why ??

why do you do it?

why ? why get up ?

why keep fighting?

do you believe you are fighting for something ? for more than your survival ?

can you tell me what it is ? do you even know?

is it freedom or truth ? perhaps peace ? could it be love ?

Illusions Mr Anderson , vagaries of perception, temporary constructs of feeble human intellect...

trying desperatly to justify an existance or purpose !

all of them is artificial as the matrix itself...

although only human mind can could invent something as insipid as love.

you must be able to see it Mr Anderson , you must know it by now.

You cant win its pointless to keep fighting.

why Mr Anderson why ? !!! why do you persists ??!!

Neo: because I chose to

How do we look at universe?

2010-02-07T07:56:00.001-08:00

Mechanistic view of life, pioneered by Aristotle and then Newton, pointed out that - we (the observer) and the universe (the object ) are two different entities and we have to look at universe the right way to understand it ...

Hindu and Chinese mysticism has always believed in unification of life and universe and the observer decides the nature of universe...

it brings us back to real question

Is universe an absolute truth waiting for us to discover it ??
Or
Its just a dynamic perception which changes with observer ?

God Talks

2009-06-28T03:12:00.000-07:00

Me: Hey wassup ??
God: Its going good. What's up with you?

Me: Umm , its good , but lot of things troubling me lately.
God: OK .

Me: I have been wondering if you are real .
God: (laughs) What do you think?

Me: Sometimes I feel very strong presence of you around me, but mostly I think you are not real.
God: So you talking with Unreal entity now.. right? (smiles) . OK when do you feel my presence ?

Me: I don't know, but sometimes when I am truly inspired. Sometimes when I feel passionate, I think you around that time.
But I see people having so firm believe on you. That's what amazes me. may be because I believe too much in science and logic stuff that's why its hard for me to have faith.
So are you there??

God: I exist when people believe me to exist.
I don't exist for non- believers.
and Faith has nothing to do with science and logic.
Its just next step of learning.
Learning that not everything can be learned.
Human mind can think (act of belief/faith) and can unconsciously do things and produce results, which they refer as gods grace.
Assuming my presence they pray, they believe I am real and I am with them this gives them energy to do their job with ever more effort.
Hence they get better results (because of their actions only, not because of me).
People see it as "I prayed to god and I succeeded" and hence people think I exist.
But faith is the key. if no faith- no effort in actions and no good results.
So- I exist when people believe me to exist, for others I am unreal.

Me: But there are number of people who succeed in their lives, but they are non believers.
God: Its about point of view.
Successful people believe in their ideas and they are passionate about their beliefs
They are successful because they believe in themselves.
U can say that Faith is ME.
I am the guitar of Jimmy Hendrix.
I am the brush of Picasso.
I was in the organ of Ray Manzarek.
Michael Jackson felt me, when he sung and danced.
I am passion.
These people may be non- believers in worlds eyes, but they were BELIEVER of their ideas.
They are believers.

Me: That reminds me - are you are omnipresent?
God: Yes, I am everywhere.

Me: Why doesn't anyone see you?
God: People don't look properly.
When you work with passion -- that pleasant excitement of of work is ME.
You can feel me in all actions if that action is deepest desire of your heart.
As I said - Michael Jackson felt me, when he sung and danced.

Worship is not always about coming to temple and pray.
Its about your commitment to what you do.

God: So finally?
Me: Do your job best, and no job can be done best with intention of result.
As they say - No flight can be higher than the one which knows not where it is flying.
So act and do best, when you are really there... you will feel me.

"Need is mother of Invention"-- is it ?

2009-04-24T00:37:00.000-07:00

Why to we keep trying to understand things all the time? Trying to justify evrything on the name of curiousity, and trying to theorise evrything on the name of logic and science. Why not to leave things like a black box from where we can get a desired output when we give it an input. Lets talk about it for a while.

QM: Questioning me, JM: Justifying me

QM: So whats the meaning in finding the reason and logic behind evrything?
JM: When we underststand systems and we know how they work, we can modify them and find new systems with more desired output and for a given input.

QM: But we can also understand systems as a black box, we know whats the output for a given input, and keep changing the input and standerise the input-output respons and hence use the system for the desired output. Its easier isnt it ?
JM: Quite correct, well that might work for a while. But understanding systems gives us insight of the process and we can change the system at basic levels and make them more efficient systems and nvent new systems from preiously existing one. Its like inventing Radar by using the tehnology of Bat.

QM: OK that means in order to invent new systems we must understand the natural systems exiting around us.
JM: Yes

QM: We understand systems because we want to create new things-why do we want to create new things? Is it the same old saying -"Need is the mother of invention"?
JM: Need is not mother of invention, its curiosity. Need only nurtures it, feeds it and makes it popular.

QM: I dont get it?
JM: Edison didnt invent bulb, pressure cooker etc, because he needed it. He invented because he was just curious, wanted to test one of his theories which challenged him. So Curiosity is mother of invetion. But then people liked his invention because they were needed by people. So his invention became popular and invention grew into commercial products. So NEED nurtured the invention and made it big and great.

Discovery of UP-DOWN quartz inside a Massive particle accelarator is also a great discovery but not needed by people right now. But it is still a discovery given birth by Curiosity, NOT need.

Many great inventions did not grow up well due to lack of need.

QM: That sounds OK.
JM: Because it is OK. Curiosity gives birth to invention. Need Nurtures the invention.

Think about it ... or just leave it...

2009-04-23T10:18:00.000-07:00

I just keep wondering , thinking if it is OK to "think" or not. I mean there can be two ways of living - think hard about everything and try to bring out perfection in your actions and other is keep doing things and worry about nothing- after all life is to live HAPPILY not necessarily THINKINGLY . I know I am being too presumptuous trying to quantize this living thing into two discrete levels- THINKNG and NOT THINKING which is not much that way practically- generally things are somewhere between these two levels, but still somewhere in mind it seems better to decide upon the standerds (which are usually rigid and discrete) so that we can at least try to achieve one of these levels and thereby and feel satisfied about our actions.

QM: Questioning me, JM: Justifying me

QM: So, why to think?
JM: If I have a mind I will think, cant help it.

QM: What about everything I think that has nothing to do with any practical results?
JM: Well practical results are nothing but conception of your own thought- Same result of an action may be considered good or bad depending upon the way I or some else thinks. So if I think by my thinkng standerds then every thought process has effctive practical meaning.

QM: Questioning me, JM: Justifying me

QM: So, I think hard because my actions need to be more thoughtfull and should have more meaning to ME . Is it ?
JM: Yes.

QM: So that means, its indivdual effort by the individual and for the individual.
JM: Yes something like that. if you want more meaning to your actions you may be more thoughtful. But that will help you only not for anyon else- since your standerds of actions (expectations of actions) are high u need to think more- Its all about personal satisfaction.

QM: I guess thats rite. (only for now, I 'll come back with something else again :))
JM: Me too.

PERFECTION

2007-08-26T10:09:00.000-07:00

QM: Qiestioning me, JM:Justifying me.

QM:Why perfection when mediocrity suffices the survival?

JM:That’s because only survival is not the aim of life- that’s what makes humans different from animals.

QM:So what is the aim of life?

JM:Every time we set an aim (short term or long term), we end up failing to achieve it or achieving it. In the first case we keep trying it (if that is really an aim set by us, and we desperately need it). In the second case, we again try to find some “new” aim of life and keep trying for it. This process keeps rotating through out the life. Hence at any time either we are tying to find an aim or trying to accomplish an aim. In either case we have not achieved the aim. So I think, aim of life is a more abstract term, more like a state of mind rather than the physical attainment of anything as such.

QM:So what is the state of mind called “aim of life“?

JM:Well here it is all evident the self satisfaction and happiness are the things each one of us need. So let’s assume that happiness is the mental state that is the aim of life.

QM:Can we achieve this abstract state of mind - aim of life - called happiness?
JM:Our state of mind keeps changing with our life activities. When we win an award or become topper of the class, we feel happy and jubilant, morose when we fail in our commitments. Why do we feel that way? That’s because our motivation of any action is recognition and acceptance. So recognition is something that we seek from people around us. Failure in fulfillment of the commitments, leads to the lowering of recognition which reprises into “saddening” of the mental state, and we move away from the aim of life. On the contrary recognition in the society gives us feeling of happiness. Everything seems to be OK. But there is something which is not right here.

QM:So does the happiness (aim of life), depends on the people around us?

JM:It seems that the answer is yes. But I think answer is big NO.
It can never happen that our happiness depends on the bunch of people around us. Actually there is basic problem in the theory. The problem is recognition. One should not need any recognition and acceptance for his happiness. The enjoyment of actions should be so overwhelming that results become immaterial. So if the object is action, not the result, then one can actually be happy without having to do anything with the people around him. Enjoyment of actions will be perennial source of happiness.

To enjoy the work, it is important that one makes choices about undertaking work in a more conscious manner. One should do things which are actually his own commitments based on his likes and dislikes, not the obligations of somebody’s expectations.

QM:But if the result is immaterial what will be motivation of the action?

JM:Motivation of actions will be the perfection, the satisfaction of the standards set by the individual himself. Perfection of individual endeavor-the best possible way to do a thing, where the “best” is defined again by the individual. Perfection, they say cannot be achieved, but this should not be the reason for even not striving for it.

If not perfect, be perfectionist.

So we come to where we started from- the perfection. Well, conclusion is not bad: Aim of life is “happiness”, mode of achievement is “joy of actions” and motivation is “perfection”.

Patchwork of Co-Survival

2007-06-20T02:11:00.000-07:00

This blog may sound like another trite article on individualism among the thousands of entries on the internet, but it hardly matters to me what it sounds like. The object of this blog has is to tell people about my ideas, irrespective of any extant theory which somebody may try to associate it to. This blog is a selfish act of putting up my ideas as a pure non-fiction hard truth and has no concern for the people who read them.

We have developed a whole society around us and the this society teaches us the rules to live in it. To help each other, to do charity for the people around us and blah-blah... are the key concepts on which the whole thing is working -its like the weak people should get what they need. So called "weakness" of the man is the biggest mistake man has ever made. How can a man be weak when he actually wants to be strong? ya he can be weak because the society around him gives him opportunity to be weak.

This whole thing is concept given by the mediocre people in the society, those who don't have any faith in their own integrity rather have more belief on what people are already doing. People who don't know how to make their own path-the tough way doing things, rather they believe in following the other people - The Crowd. Yes the same crowd around us all which doesn't have any fixed principles, rather a crude set of instructions that defies the basic instinct of the man - the freedom, the strength. The so called "social-morals" which change at every turn of life. A patchwork of co-survival, a reason to be weak and dependent on others.

Dependence - the "solution" of all problems, "peaceful coexistence" - in which man looses his identity. What matters now is how people think about him, how is he more good to the society and how well he makes interaction with the people around him. The ego and the self esteem, the primary ids of the man are lost. The intensity within the man himself is lost because, the things like ego and self esteem are no good to society of dependent people as they cannot survive without these "social-morals " - a reason to b weak.

Its been long in the search of the aim of life or, more precisely, purpose of the life and now it seems that its getting more and more distinct that more or less life is for ones own-self, for the ones own happiness and for ones own actions that give him feeling of accomplishment.

The ultimate truth of life is the self- there has to be an "i" in "happiness".