Thursday, November 29, 2007

Letters From The Moon, Part 2

Hi Kathy,

Dont worry. There isnt much white here as might seem from down there. Its all either muddy, dark & cold, or muddy, bright & hot. And the STA's have room color simulation technology, so you could have the shed area in any color you wanted!

Nothing grows on the moon you see. It cant. So I cant teach you much. We tried growing stuff earlier, but there wasnt enough CO2 that the shed areas could release outside. We are still a small community. And keeping the plants inside the sheds wasnt an option because real estate is really touching moon sky.

Also, it doesnt look as beautiful here as it used to from earth. But its nicely exotic. I look forward to the guided tours outside sheds. And there is a small area, away from the craters and debris, where you are allowed to jump around as much as you want. Thats real fun. Gravity inside the shed is modulated. I wanted to lease a non modulated STA. Its cheaper. But Mom & Dad are old and they wouldnt really enjoy it.

I am sure they have told you that you really cant stay down there for long. Its getting warmer and warmer and soon you'll all drown in the melting polar ice caps. So, sure move around a bit, see everything, it wont even take long, cause nothing much is left to see anyway. And then you can plan a trip this side.

Look forward to seeing you.


Crimson Feet,

STA - 1471C

Next to Grungian Crater


Monday, November 26, 2007

He is ok if she kisses him, but not ok if she laughs with him!

This is not about insecurity or openness. Its about what constitutes infidelity for men and women?

I have a (unproven) theory that, in the heart of their hearts, men fear sexual infidelity much less than they fear emotional one!, while on the contrary, women fear sexual infidelity relatively more!
The idea is that men, unlike women, believe (and rightly so in their case) that uncalled for sexual acts are a spur of the moment thing. It isnt necessarily a display of their intention to betray their current partner, or any symbol of being dissatisfied with her.
Its like, "...i am really sorry honey, this hot blonde just kept looking at me and I was 5 beers down, and trust me she wasnt even as hot next morning, are still the prettiest!"

So, men would be rather forgiving of their women committing adultery and apologising for it, than if their woman was seeking emotional support and security from another man. That, inherently, "writes him off" as her man!
(So, at a not so accurately simplified level, 'he is ok if she kisses him, but not OK if she laughs with him!' )

...that girl is NOT mine because i do her!, she is mine because she trusts me and finds support in me and feels at home in my arms! if she finds these things somewhere else.. i am not her man anymore!

The unfortunate (or maybe not) bit is, that women correlate physical intimacy very strongly with emotional dependance. Which leaves the poor man wondering as to what exactly is she doing? Seeking emotional support or seeking physical satisfaction?

The probable fact is that, 'he' might betray physically but not emotionally, but when SHE betrays, she does it EVERY WAY!

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

On Will Power & Reality (Part 1)

I am a very strong believer in the human will power. So strong that I at times overexpect from "will", and in the process am let down by it.

Remember the quote by Arthur C Clarke? "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Now I put this here for three reasons. Firstly, the idea of magic must have existed since a really really long time, simply because we have a word in ALL languages to express it. Secondly, magic always enthralls us and reflects those things that we REALLY might want to do! And finally, whats magical at one point of time, almost always becomes "real" at a later point in time.
Magic is a strange concoction of belief, disbelief, awe, wonder, desires and quests.

Lets look at the way technology has evolved.
  • Flying in thin air (for a human being) was considered magical at a point of time.
  • So was the idea of touching the moon.
  • Controlling any kind of physical activity from a distance, without contact, was magic. Now we have remote controlled mechanisms for almost everything & we also have thinking things (called computers) who can interact within themselves without any physical contact (bluetooth etc)
  • Hearing a persons' voice coming out of a small handheld thing, which at times is connected to nothing in the world, and then speaking back to the person in the same "thing"? Wouldnt it sound magical if you were to explain it to your 17th century girl friend?

Doesnt it look like that these things have happened because entire generations of human beings have "willed" them to happen? Of course, there have been well meaning skeptics too, who might have tried to stop these people, using perfectly rational sounding arguments like "this has never happened before!" But they have only managed to add meaning and aura to the word magic.

  • Becoming invisible, travelling to future, and making other planets habitable sounds magical to you today??

Now lets look at the way societies have evolved.
From the time of hunting in the wilds for food, man has been seeking better tools to hunt (basically "more comfort"). And we have had the metal ages, to Industrial Revolution, to Information Technology era.

Over the years, everyone has been seeking "development", and thats what has been happening. We have a certain unspoken definition of development, which implies 'more money, more comfort and more entertainment for more people'. And thats what we keep striving for all our lives, and keep getting too.

If you notice closely, you will see a pattern. "We want it, and over a period of time we get it."
I will put it a little differently. "Unknowingly, we create our reality ourselves, as we live it along."

~~~end of part 1~~~

(originally on Avanoo: )

Saturday, November 03, 2007

Are We All Basically Trying To Mate Efficiently?

If you have not already guessed the book I am refering to, 'The Mating Mind' by Geofferey Miller is sort of a revelation, at least theoretically.

An excerpt
"Traditionally, evolutionary theory has explained intelligence as merely a by-product of surplus brain size. But psychologist Geoffrey Miller argues that it actively evolved, like the peacock's tail, for courtship and mating, and thereby shaped human nature.Miller maintains that both human sexes have evolved significant ways of displaying fitness via expression of creative intelligence such as storeytelling, poetry, art, music, sports, dance, humor, kindness, and leadership."

Intelligence is the root "cause" all questioning, imagination, speculation and creation. Its the reason why we can think and talk about conciousnessness, soul and God. Its the basis of self-realisation.

What if all this was simply an evolutionary strategy to attract better mates and thus multiply further into better life forms? (As senseless or sensible as a dogs' evolved ability to sniff, which even by the farthest stretch of imagination, doesnt seem to be affecting the workings of the universe in any way.)
Procreation, is probably the only universally acceptable reason for existence. Simply because death itself is such a stark reality. (I am rather extreme in wondering that "what end purpose does existence itself serve?". Thats deserves a different post.)

All creative activities that human beings indulge in seem quiet unnecessary for survival. Poetry, music, writing, painting.. all art forms, are not naturally adding to making the survival easier. (On the contrary it makes it tougher sometimes, for eg. when you ponder upon the reason of your existence real hard and feel frustrated at not having an answere.)

So are all the creative and intellectual faculties basically directed towards becoming a more suitable potential mate? If it is false, then fine. If its true, then doesnt it undermine the importance of all thought processes that are essentially creative? Doesnt the world seem fabricated? Can survival and procreation actually be the core principles driving the entire machinery of the cosmos?

PS. A rather weak argument that I could think against his theory is as follows. Its interesting to note that the brain (not necessarily mind) is a constituent of ALL organisms. A peacock's feathers (or featehrs in general), on the other hand, are not present across all animals. That gives brain a different status, and therefore weakens Geoffrey's hypothesis.
Also, I would like to know of more animals with an evolutionary drift specifically towards sexual selection. What is a dog's tool? (not that!). Or how do pigeons figure who is a better mate? Isnt everything in the body (and in the human case, mind) leading towards the decision of a better mate, so why the emphasis on intelligence?

Intellectual Property - Beware