The semantics of Duality

The concept of duality is an ingrained thought in us. We can seldom go outside the matrix of opposites. To every aspect described, there is a contra. So, what exactly is duality? This is a question I have asked myself a lot lately. It is something I strive to understand, because of the fundamental position it occupies in the way man has come to see everything. Think about it.

Man and nature; mind and body; spirit and man; self and man; good and bad; pleasure and pain; knowledge and ignorance; system and environment. The list goes on. In fact it is endless. Take any aspect and you can always create its complement. In my thoughts about duality, I have come to see there is a bias in the way we see things. When we refer to a pair of opposites, our thoughts compress it into a binary logic. That either something is present or it is absent. There is no middle ground. The deterministic view of things. The Newtonian way of understanding. The world at the scale we see.

But is the world 'organized' as such? Personally, I am beginning to think the whole idea is flawed at its core. My reason for such an argument is ground on the presumption that duality is a simplified view of a more fuzzy world. We don't deal with 0 and 1 in reality. We have a spectrum ranging from 0 to 1 passing through everything in between. There is a continuum. The problem of duality is centred in the act of communication and is not a reality in itself.

Take the case of an important human emotion, viz. happiness. Our intuitive understanding of such a feeling is binary. When I say I am happy, it precludes the possibility that I am sad. That is because we see happiness and sadness as two binary states. But if such a case were true, then what is the meaning adjectival qualifiers like very happy, delighted etc. Certainly they do denote a greater or lesser happiness. Another duality? This would only result in an endless regress.

What I want to say is that when we deal with duality, there is a degree associated with it. For eg. Happiness is not merely a state. It is a state with a degree or extent. Happiness then is not a pure quality. It is rather an admixture where the quality of 'happy' is more than 'sad'. I might then go on to add that when we are neither happy nor sad, it is a case where the two qualities are in equal proportion. The state of indifference.

The key idea here is that there is no boundary in duality. The perception of duality is the passage of the aspect from preponderance in one end of the spectrum to the other side. Both qualities exist at all times nonetheless.

Insanity attacks :|

Causality, Spontaneity, Evolution and Interdependence.... i am going in circles now :(

This is driving me crazy. It's official. In the event of my madness turning into a chronic disease, i hereby attribute the result to the Universe (if it exists), to myself (if it were my dream), to the lord (if it were it's dream), to the void (if nothing exists)

Pattern Recognition Bias

If i gave u a sequence of numbers: 2,4,6,8,10,12,.... what can you predict about the rest of the sequence?

The most obvious answer coming from our long education history would be that the given sequence is that of even numbers. This is an example of pattern recognition bias. Our left brain which is responsible for logic (nothing but pattern recognition) makes us connect the dots in such a way. Sounds familiar? Occam's Razor, the principle of parsimony, crudely states that the simplest explanation to a given problem is the most likely of all possible solutions. That is how our brain sees this sequence. We store rules that can be used to generate specific instances. A very powerful data compression principle employed by the brain. In a largely random world, we breakdown data into pockets of order and define a function to impose order on the limited sample space. Are there consequences? Yes. Since we assume a linear and logical world, some of the events appear to come out of the blue, unexpected or rare.

Let me take the earlier sequence itself: 2,4,6,8,10,12.......

Lets say we know more about the sequence: 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,19,20,23,28...

Until 12 what we had was the past and the present. Beyond 12 is the future. When at 16 we see 19 emerge, we are taken by surprise because the expected trend of 'even numbers' is no longer valid. Instead, the sequence turned out to be an ascending sequence. Our expectation of the unexpected is tempered by our expectation of a linear, orderly expected world.

It is possible to superimpose more than one type of pattern on an unfolding event while giving a very coherent and consistent explanation of the past and present. But there is an inherent bias based on our tendency to assume known patterns. If you noticed, I re-interpreted the sequence to be an ascending sequence from an earlier assumed even number sequence. I have made another likely error.

What if the sequence were: 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,19,20,23,28, 27,18....

Most of the times we try to confirm and assert a post-hoc explanation. History appears to be logical, business cycles appear to be logical, wars appear to be logical, rise and fall of civilizations appear to be logical. But if we were to ask people of those times, if they expected events of such scales, it is very unlikely that they would have seen it coming. In effect, the logic is to suit our needs. This logic however cannot be expected to hold reliably to forecast the future.

Coming back to the sequence 2,4,6,8,10,12,

The most obvious and probably the only truth that is confirmed is that the given sequence is not a descending sequence. From the start and middle, what we can reliably say about the 'full picture' is not what it is, rather what it is definitely not. We can rule out a pattern based on what we know. We can never confirm a pattern using the same premise.

“We now know a thousand ways not to build a light bulb” - Thomas Alva Edison, on his failures before finally inventing the Light Bulb

Cogito ergo dumb?

Everything happens for a reason. Really, Is it so? I want to ask. This is one of those very convenient phrases used to provide an answer to everything. Let me see. I failed. It happened for a reason. I succeeded. It also happened for a reason. What in the world does not happen for a reason then? It is one of those words like "gen" where the answer to everything in this whole wide universe is gen. Why did God manifest this Universe.Gen.

Humans like to believe in their ability to ratiocinate. It is a matter of pride for us. Ah look at that donkey there. I bet you a 100 bucks it cannot think like me. We are smarter than all the species that have existed so far. Oh really, how do you deny the existence of anyone smarter than us. Simple. I don't perceive. Nor can I prove. Hold on. In the perception of an ant, whatever that may mean, do we"humans" exist? Can't say. A blow lands on an ant and it goes into deep sleep. We are struck by an earthquake. We goto sleep as well. Wait. Was a man or supernatural involved in those two cases respectively? Eh, it was an act of nature. Of course it was.

But seriously, are we rational or rationalizing. Is reason a tool for justification or does it have any intrinsic value by itself. I believe reason is merely a pattern recognition software meant to compress data into rules which makes us store information much more easily. A genetic benefit to mankind. The "reason" i say this is because if reason really had a value, we would have the ability to predict the future. Why is that reason can so easily explain the past but not the future?
Evidence. There is evidence in the past. A set of points through which we can loop an explanation to make it consistent. More like story writing having a few pointers for the plot. Whereas future is chaos until it manifests. No reason can explain chaos. Although one can "create" order pockets within chaos.

Nature has endowed different species with multifarious pattern recognition softwares. For humans, it is reason. It is nothing special in so far as nature's scheme of things are considered. Remember, the dinosaurs lasted a 100 million years even without such a thing as reason. We, the humans, have been around for a few million years. Can reason save us and help survive longer? If it cannot, some other species, a few hundred million years from now, will be learning about how "reason" resulted in our eventual destruction. Oh that is, if their biological evolution is also premised on reason!

Equivalent Exchange - Law of Alchemy

Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain,
something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's First Law of Equivalent
Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth

But the world isn't perfect, and the law is incomplete. Equivalent Exchange doesn't
encompass everything that goes on here. But I still choose to believe in its principle: that
all things do come at a price. That there's an ebb, and a flow, a cycle. That the pain we
went through did have a reward and that anyone who's determined and perseveres will
get something of value in return, even if it's not what they expected
~ Alphonse Eric, Full Metal Alchemist

Improv Acting

Improv acting is a term i recently came across. It is a very interesting concept. There is a play and there are actors on the stage. But wait. Something important seems to be missing?

That something happens to be the plot. In this type of acting, the plot develops dynamically on the stage. Every character assumes some role and starts a dialogue. It is upto the rest of them to improvise on the situation and keep the dialogue open ended.

The idea here is to keep the dialogue going for as long as possible. One of the interesting elements of this kind of theatre is the need to be open minded and have a lateral thinking ability to respond spontaneously to a situation.

The idea behind such a thematic acting is develop skills of quick thinking, decision making and rapid assessment of situations.

Blink - Thoughts in a flash !!

I am reading this book called ‘Blink’ by Malcolm Gladwell. It is a book on decision making based on thin slicing, in common parlance often referred to as ‘split second’ decisions. The book attempts to investigate the ‘blink’ decision making phenomenon through a series of real life examples. It makes a case for quick decision making as an acquirable ability. I guess I need to read the book once more to get a firm understanding of the idea it conveys.

The book has however set my thoughts rolling on a hypothesis for decision making. Decision making is a circumstantial act. But it’s driven by a lot of factors which occur before and during the event itself. I can think of the following drivers for decision making: genetics, experience, environment, priming and improvisation.

The base template for our decision making lies in genetics. By genetics, I refer to the long line of traits, characteristics and attitudes we humans at a fundamental level and individuals at a specific level have acquired from our ancestors. They store the combined experiences of actions which have enabled survival and also the instincts which sense danger. The disparity here has to do with the level of experiences and difficulties our ancestors faced. Our genes store the broad framework for the way we are ‘expected’ to act. This sets the starting point. But genes alone are not the deciders. There is interplay between genetic information and external environment. Modifications to genes based on information acquired in one generation are likely to be embedded in the succeeding generations. This sets the process for sequential learning which is overwritten, modified by more recent generation’s experience. I am tempted to call this a ‘genetic moving average’

The second important factor is environment. By environment, I refer to the condition in which we have grownup. Our family values, social circle and people influencing our life are some examples of the environment. This shapes the context in which we base our decisions. Environment plays a particularly important role in childhood, teen and youth periods of life. That is the time when impressions are developed, stereotypes are built and mindsets reinforced. What we decide during this period about ourselves and the rest of the world forms the basis for the way we see the world and the way we want the world to see us.

The third factor is experience. Experience refers to specific significant events which shape our outlook. Over time we have experiences which impact the way we see a similar situation. Inherently, we acquire the idea that a similar event is going to have a similar outcome and we start making decisions accordingly. This is why bad experiences are more often than not termed as psychological scars for the imprint they leave. A lot of times, this results in people expecting life to turn out in a particular way and eventually that’s what they end up getting. It’s not so much as life is such and such. It is more like, I did this and this happened as a consequence.

The fourth factor is priming. Priming refers to an immediate event which precedes the time of decision making. It is a situation which alters the state of mind and sets different expectations from the event at hand. For eg. a bad start to the day gets you into a mode where you start to see bad things happening for the rest of the day. This makes you have a foul mood which only makes things worse off. Or you witness something which keeps you expecting for that to happen to you. They dont have to be a conscious effect. Priming in most cases are subconscious influences but because they are the most recent in memory, the decision is most impacted by the priming.

Finally, coming to the fifth factor i.e.improvisation. Improvisation refers to the actions which are enacted while the event is in progress. These actions are the sum total of all the other factors embedded in a person acting in consonance with the reaction of the counter-agent (which maybe another person, environment etc.). What this means is that your response is shaped to match the ongoing response from the counterparty. For eg. the way you drive on the road here in India is not entirely rule based. It is more an act of improvisation. You see how the person ahead, on the side and behind you is driving and anticipate their next position and automatically evaluate where you ought to be. All this is done subconsciously. This is done dynamically by each person by evaluating future positions constantly, so much so that you know intuitively as to when to brake, when to accelerate etc. When one person messes up the dynamic evaluation, you know what happens.

In conclusion, what we do is based on many things and how we decide is based on many factors. While we tend to simplify and say such and such is the cause and so is the effect, decision making happens as a complex web of interactions which cannot be broken down into parts. The next time you want to attribute a cause or blame, make sure you think through the situation in its entirety :)

Chinamer

I was thinking about the recent mergers and acquisitions between various financial institutions on Wall Street. One can make a similar argument in the case of China and America. Lets see. China is good at savings, investment and production. America is good at spending, consumption and innovation. Why not merge these two countries?

That way, the bad assets on the balance sheet of America i.e the US Federal Reserve can be absorbed by the Chinese and the goods produced (i.e. the measure of level of unemployment) by the Chinese can be absorbed by America. Neat solution to avoid the problem of currency, deficit, reserves, free trade, WTO etc etc. The North American region will become the state/ province of Western Chinamer while the Asian China region will become the state/ province of Eastern Chinamer. The political systems in each of the provinces will remain the same as it is now. The financial systems will remain the same as well. The citizens will get dual citizenship but they will not be allowed to immigrate geographically. McDonalds and Starbucks will continue to goto China. Noodles, textiles and toys will come to America. There wont be any recession for a long time.

By the time the next recession comes, India will be ready to merge with Chinamer. That way recessions will be perpetually tackled on Earth. Then we can think of space colonies! Ah damn my imagination. Huh. On second thoughts, 'Chimera' seems to be a better name.

The Indian Economy is different

The Indian economic engine is distinctly different from economies of the past and the present. This is not so by design. It is largely circumstantial. Despite laboring under the heavily clad vest of bureaucracy, the pace of growth continues to be robust. Yes. It is not racing like the Chinese hare or floundering like an African snail. The tortoise goes at its own pace. It draws itself into a shell and shields itself at times of danger. When the danger passes, its head and legs emerge out of the shell, to restart the journey. A tardy pace of economic progress is the price the tortoise has to pay for carrying the weight of the shell.

The fall of consumerism

I get spammed incessantly on the phone with offers for free credit card, free sim card, free insurance, free this, free that. Bah! Then there is the SMS spam. Download this ringtone, listen to our astrologers, play these games, blah blah. I hate this kind of marketing. Promotional campaigns about products which I dont need.

I see this type of consumerism as a societal malaise. Consumerism is the consumption of beautifully wrapped and lavishly marketed useless products. It has become the bane of modern economy. Profligate spending on meaningless items backed by a thrift system seeking to make a quick buck. How can this be a sustainable approach to human progress and welfare development? All one does here is create catchy phrases, colorful wrappers, and loads of marketing BS. Is this business innovation? Is this a business model? Does the product serve a requirement. Nothing. A wasted creativity on a wasted product on a wasted purpose.

The present crisis has brought to the fore, the issue of consumerism. As discretionary spending is replaced by necessity spending in the recession and slowdown economies, the markets will temper consumerism with a measure of sensibility. Brands will most likely be replaced by their cheaper generics and product substitution (particularly in the case of electronic goods) will decrease.

Obama Mania

Just because a man is halfwhite-halfblack, halfcross-halfcrescent, halfamerican-halfkenyan, he does not become the Narasimha avatar everyone seems to think he is. Barack Obama is the man. Jon Stewart of the Daily Show had to say this hilarious thing about Obama's pre-election trip to Germany, "There is something strangely familiar about a charismatic leader drawing huge crowds of German's to the Central Square" obviously alluding to another such 'leader' who caused extensive damage to his supposedly superior race and the rest of the world.

I dont have anything personal against Obama. I think he is a very idealistic guy and has leadership capabilities good enough to inspire and unite the Americans during this time. My concern is that people are considering him to be a once in a million year phenomenon and expecting him to do something impossible. Lets face it. Obama is the sum total of all hopes expressed for change. In fact, his very unique background is a testament to the fact that people want something different.

But,
1. Does different here necessarily mean good.

2. How much different is Obama's change going to be from the past.

Color Psychology

I recently read this article on the impact of colors on human thought. It so happens that colors have some effect on the way people think. According to a study published in the journal Science, the color red boosts attention to detail in tasks such as memorization, while blue encourages creativity.

I was curious to find the effects of other colors, including yellow, as it happens to be my favorite color.

Here is what some prominent people had to say about different colors:

Black: Black is real sensation, even if it is produced by entire absence of light. The sensation of black is distinctly different from the lack of all sensation. -Hermann von Helmholz

White: White...is not a mere absence of colour; it is a shining and affirmative thing, as fierce as red, as definite as black...God paints in many colours; but He never paints so gorgeously, I had almost said so gaudily, as when He paints in white. - G. K. Chesterton

Red: Red has guts .... deep, strong, dramatic. A geranium red. A Goya red ... to be used like gold for furnishing a house ... for clothes, it is strong, like black or white. - Valentino

Blue: Blue color is everlastingly appointed by the deity to be a source of delight - John Ruskin

Green: Green, which is Nature's colour, is restful, soothing, cheerful, and health-giving. - Paul Brunton

Yellow: How wonderful yellow is. It stands for the sun.- Vincent Van Gogh