Unscientific optimism?

When i read my earlier post, I think it fits even better with the theme of optimism: another trait that often eludes and confounds me!

Unscientific happiness?

I can imagine the rolling eyes of those readers who know me in person... :-). I can be the very personification of a cloudy day, so what could I possibly contribute on the subject of happiness? I have found myself related to and surrounded by people who seem to me as having crossed the boundary into being "inexplicably happy". Similar to how one of those cloudy days also brings welcome rain, I attempt to mysteriously provide smiles through my disdain of excessively happy people :-).

The basis of this post is an article that I received by email about scientific thinking. The scientist (by profession and occasionally by personality) that I am, I have decided to find an explanation for the above phenomenon in a scientific way. My conclusion thus far is summarized in the title.

In what would seem as an example of the above personification, my first hypothesis is that the biggest reason for happiness in this world is ignorance. I propose this hypothesis by contraposition: I abhor being ignorant. Attempting to stay true to my profession, it leads me to long quests of thoroughly unnecessary and self-fortifying information (much like 24-hour news channels) all of which lead to less-than-happy conclusions (also much like 24-hour news channels). Notice how "frustrated" always seems to be linked to artists and scientists, but never to those who are "happy-go-lucky"? What seems to make people happier as they age is that either they or their brain learn to ignore the same facts that made them miserable earlier!

My second hypothesis arises from the reasoning behind my first hypothesis. Another reason for why people seem happy is that they are unscientific. Time and again it has confounded me as to how the same people who spend their money, time and strength to look pretty, young and vivacious also fervently celebrate the day of the year that announces that they are not as young as they used to be! No scientist of any repute could live with such a contradiction! Subjectivity of interpretation, the very bane of scientific thought, seems to be the strange key to happiness

I have to admit testing these hypotheses was tricky: logically arguing how a happy subject was in fact ignorant or illogical tends to invalidate them as subjects for this experiment :-). On the other hand the same test sometimes fortified the second hypothesis: happy people readily admit they could be unscientific and even mysteriously seem to conclude that this precise trait makes them happy!

So my conclusion so far is that happiness is just unscientific. Interestingly, that conclusion makes me happier!

We rule!

The tale goes that once Ganesh and his brother Kartikeya were fighting about who was more intelligent and able. Their parents suggested a race that circled the world 7 times: the winner would be declared the more able one. Kartikeya at once started his journey, while Ganesh thoughtfully circled his parents 7 times claiming they were the world to him. Needless to say he was declared the winner. But I wonder, did Ganesh actually circle the world and leave his mark?It seems so, because his name keeps cropping up in the strangest of new places and contexts. Here is the latest example I chanced upon, supposedly imagining a clash between Ganesh and Hitler.

Now let me be the first one to declare that although I do not know the details of this play, I would readily raise my objection to depicting our Gods in all kinds of frivolity (bikinis, chappals, burgers, etc.): read a previous blog of mine. But the outrage aside, it also undoubtedly signifies our dominance in today's world--we rule!

Think about it. If we were to portray Hitler and WWII as a clash between the divine good and the mortal evil, which Godly character would seem most uncontroversial? One cannot take a character from Christianity, Judaism or Islam because proponents of all three were involved in the war and are still involved in its aftermath. So a commercial venture that borrowed from any would run the risk of failing because of partisanship. Enter Ganesh! Totally incontrovertible, yet the proclaimed God of no less than one-fifth of the planet, and to add, with physical features that surely create worldwide curiosity if not amusement!

This play does not seem like a philanthropic act. It is a commercial venture. What does it say about Hindus if an Australian company thinks making a play around a Hindu God will actually earn them considerable revenue? Unless thrown together by Indians to cater to an Indian crowd (in which case all criticism seems either premature or moot) their market is Australian in nature. If they think Ganesh can pull audiences (especially in the context of Hitler) that is remarkable. This to me marks the reach and power of Hinduism. We don't even have to persuade, brainwash, threaten and train people specifically to spread the goodwill of our religion. The report says the play is "brimming with humour". I assume in good faith that humor does not translate into the belittling and deprecating kind. But I struggle to think of another religious personality who is simultaneously divine, accessible enough to be humorous and inviting laughter without the threat of consequence! Who says God has to be this feared boss that we spend our whole lives simply placating and hoping we don't anger?

In the above play, I don't see how they can belittle Ganesh. If it happens, Hitler has to be the one doing it. I think they won't risk portraying Hitler in any kind of positive, winning light.

A frank opinion to end this post: as understandable and justifiable is the public outrage at belittling our Gods is, in the end it satisfies the very purpose of the belittlement: controversy. Insulting and belittling is a symptom of great insecurity. It is when one feels the need to oppose or criticize but does not have any rational arguments to do it. If truly there were one powerful God and all others were impostors, why on earth or in heaven's name would the all-powerful God let the impostors exist and flourish, if he did not think the pluralism is worth preserving? So the next time you see Hindu Gods show up in unexpected places and contexts, try to swallow that outrage and exult in the new-found popularity of our Gods. Can China honestly even compete with us in this?

(These) Times (In) India

I remember a time when my father used to encourage me to read snippets from the Times of India to improve my English. Now that I'm a father, I intend to do the same thing but apparently to improve English through negation. Here is an example of journalism that is at best careless and at worst....well "non-journalistic".

Even though I would regard my current grasp of English as reasonably good, how did I get here? A good command of any language requires going beyond the school textbooks. Much to my parents' disappointment I never was an avid reader of books without pictures. However as a kid I partially made up for that impediment with voracious reading of newspapers. My mother tells me it started with making me underline specific letters in a clipping, followed by reading and explaining headlines and later in life, writing newspaper clipping to improve my handwriting. Those newspaper clippings helped me more in spelling, grammar and creative writing than probably anything else. As a Maharashtrian whose grasp of Marathi leaves a lot to be desired, four years of Maharashtra Times while studying in Mumbai did wonders! For a kid like me who does not catch the reading fever, what hope is there today of such avenues? (If the errors in the above news item weren't obvious, they are twofold: (1) the headline and the first paragraph span an entire generation (2) The portion of the news item that is actually relevant to the headline is almost as long as the headline.)

Is the above case a symptom of mere carelessness in typing, or a more serious case of not caring about quality? This is not the only instance by any means: the above example bears sad testimony to the decline of one of the most respected English dailies in India. I also happen to belong to the "X->Y" generation, i.e. transiting from the X to the Y generation. As a professor, this is what I get in an email from a student: "Professor, can i cum to ur office at 3?". Call me cynical, but the previous generations that saved money by curbing words in a telegram were better off than the SMS generation. It is disturbing to see how callously students respond to concerns that their emails, letters and even resumes have typographical and grammatical errors. And (gulp!), all this despite having spell-checkers!

While I often become self-righteous about current times, since when did language become "accommodating and democratic"? What's next: maybe 2+2=5 will get you partial credit because more people remember the song than mathematics?