For a change, this post is less of my typical spur-of-the-moment spinning-wheels in the rooms upstairs. This post is about reasons I believe responsible for the fact that the local software product market is still in it's infancy. A subject I frequently ponder about; more frequently of late, and is prompted by something I read on here.
Since India started on the path to a free-market economy back in the early 1990s, it's software industry has acquired a name for itself. The population on the subcontinent has frequently been the subject of jokes on topics of family planning; but apart from China and countries in Africa, the subcontinent is probably the world's last underexploited market. In addition, the longitudes also work to the advantage of the sub-continent in providing the facility for a 24/7 work-cycle to industries in the far-east, and in America. Longitudes apart [pun intended!] the rupee is sufficiently weak for an indian workforce to be viable economically, even at the cost of training them.
Indians, outside the subcontinent, have by-and-large done well; contributed to their adoptive country, and gone on to positions of responsibility. But I admit to prejudice on this point. Anyway, the thing is that companies from the sub-continent have an advantage in being able to bid _very_ competitively for projects from firms located outside the subcontinent. Unflattering as it may seem, even a child can learn to throw instructions together and write a program. To write compact, maintainable code, something for an evolving _product_, one needs knowledge of algorithms, design strategies, and knowledge of technologies. Some of these may be learnt from books, the others must be learnt by hard experience.
Similar to the case of an individual, a firm too must earn to survive. In the latter case, the earning is termed 'profit'. A product, until it is established in the markets, remains a red-line on the profit-charts. Few software firms in India cater to a product for the local businesses, and professionals. Businesses in India are, for the most part, still in the small business stage. These are usually owned by a family for generations at a time. This is not to say there are no manufacturer owned outlets; there are, but such outlets are heavily outnumbered by the smaller businesses which cater across brands, and across price segments. Similarly there are small supermarkets, mostly managed by various consumer cooperatives, and some small chains. Business, by and large, is computation intensive but small stores here rarely own a computer, let alone use a computer for inventories/billing. Both are managed on paper, if at all.
Lately, small businesses are beginning to make the switch to a computer but there is an established mindset which must change, before the potential of the market can be realized. A few arguments I believe that need to be factored in by firms aiming to tap this market are -
First, there are few, if any, retail chains; as a result one big selling point in favour of computers - networking/communication - does not carry quite the weight it should.
Second [as a consequence of independent retail stores], the owner of the store down the street _will_ think atleast twice before putting his data into a server he himself does not control; no matter that the advantages of a remote server - daily backups, encrypted data storage [(+; the freedom to sue, if there's a problem ]
Third, Computers require a power-supply. As much as a third of the electricity generated by the Electricity companies in India is lost in the accounting [to what are euphemistically termed as Transmission & Distribution Losses]. There are places [my city of Nagpur with population > 4M] where the power companies shutdown distribution [it's called load-shedding] for as long as 4-hours during the working day. I've heard of places in the interior who experience power-outages upto 8 hours a day. This has improved in recent days, but the point is this - power supply can be ... capricious. The spiraling cost of fuel all but precludes purchase of a Generator. From the point of view of the store-owner - "Invest in a computer, Invest in the software for the computer, invest in a generator, purchase fuel time-and-again, and _then_ pay the auditor? I think not".
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Chaos
I like to hang around in the c++ forum on the IRC networks. The discussion is not always about the language, it's features, IDE idiosyncrasies and the like; it may be about the mundane too. This post is about a discussion we got into about personal ownership of vehicles. At first, the need for a discussion may appear pointless. After all ever since we were able to, we have attempted to domesticate animals for the purpose of transport. So why, after all these millenia(?), do we have this debate? Not, of-course, that we know whether the debate was there earlier.
Going by what little we know of the past, the concept of governance was pretty much limited to a pack-leader. The concept of society, & societal welfare didn't appear in the picture until much later. On the other hand, the idea of each person looking out for himself is almost hard-wired into us. A private vehicle is an extension of our own self. One which may open up the boundaries beyond the nearest visible horizon. To restrict private ownership is almost akin to putting bounds on how much a person may grow. The word 'almost' appears because the usage of a personal vehicle may vary from the apparently frivolous to deadly serious.
The primary reason for the debate rises apparently because of the frivolous usage of so many vehicles. The use we put our vehicle to results in the obvious consumption of so much fuel. But that's the obvious purpose. In the same manner by which a horse cannot outrun a racing camel in the desert, a man-made vehicle requires a certain terrain too; the roads. Our roads are constructed to be able to transport only so much traffic at a time. If the limited capacity of a road is exceeded, the least that may happen is an apparently interminable delay... the worst may be extreme road-rage.
Public ownership of vehicles may help keep the number of vehicles on roads limited to as many as are necessary. The bottle-necks will move from the road, to queues at the point of embarkation. The priority may be decided at-least partially upon old-fashioned courtesy, rather than upon BHP aka Brute Horsepower. That sounds wonderful ... until we realize it does nothing to actually increase the traffic-bearing capacity of a road. This is only a thought, but if all drivers decide to switch to public-transport, public transport systems - bus, rail-road, ferry, pavements will face the same congestion problems soon enough. Couple this with the fact that the elderly, and infirm need some degree of insulation from the more brisk commuters. Also, factor in the knowledge that a person should typically get to a point within about 10 minutes walking distance of their destination. Remember that all neighbourhoods are not necessarily safe for a stranger. Add also the knowledge that transport is not merely persons, but also material goods; the backbone of economics.
Our transport systems may be chaotic where they are congested. Transport systems - road, railroad, water, and air are not universally equally congested. Beyond the city, beyond the railway junction, out at the fringe of the sea/air lanes, there is still open space.
Going by what little we know of the past, the concept of governance was pretty much limited to a pack-leader. The concept of society, & societal welfare didn't appear in the picture until much later. On the other hand, the idea of each person looking out for himself is almost hard-wired into us. A private vehicle is an extension of our own self. One which may open up the boundaries beyond the nearest visible horizon. To restrict private ownership is almost akin to putting bounds on how much a person may grow. The word 'almost' appears because the usage of a personal vehicle may vary from the apparently frivolous to deadly serious.
The primary reason for the debate rises apparently because of the frivolous usage of so many vehicles. The use we put our vehicle to results in the obvious consumption of so much fuel. But that's the obvious purpose. In the same manner by which a horse cannot outrun a racing camel in the desert, a man-made vehicle requires a certain terrain too; the roads. Our roads are constructed to be able to transport only so much traffic at a time. If the limited capacity of a road is exceeded, the least that may happen is an apparently interminable delay... the worst may be extreme road-rage.
Public ownership of vehicles may help keep the number of vehicles on roads limited to as many as are necessary. The bottle-necks will move from the road, to queues at the point of embarkation. The priority may be decided at-least partially upon old-fashioned courtesy, rather than upon BHP aka Brute Horsepower. That sounds wonderful ... until we realize it does nothing to actually increase the traffic-bearing capacity of a road. This is only a thought, but if all drivers decide to switch to public-transport, public transport systems - bus, rail-road, ferry, pavements will face the same congestion problems soon enough. Couple this with the fact that the elderly, and infirm need some degree of insulation from the more brisk commuters. Also, factor in the knowledge that a person should typically get to a point within about 10 minutes walking distance of their destination. Remember that all neighbourhoods are not necessarily safe for a stranger. Add also the knowledge that transport is not merely persons, but also material goods; the backbone of economics.
Our transport systems may be chaotic where they are congested. Transport systems - road, railroad, water, and air are not universally equally congested. Beyond the city, beyond the railway junction, out at the fringe of the sea/air lanes, there is still open space.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Surnames.
A while ago the bank officer put in papa's name as my middle-name, in spite of my efforts to convince him otherwise. It's tradition hereabouts. In some parts of India, a middle name is mandatory. The middle name may be the village of origin of the family, the name of the father/spouse. The thing is, a middle name is not necessary now that a family-name/surname is.
Not too far in the past, there was a time when travelling for a day meant a distance of perhaps 100kilometers at the most. For a long period of time travel by horse-back, cart, and buggy were perhaps the quickest means of travel. In such a time, living in relatively small communities most people would know each other by name. A surname was not necessary. Indeed, in some parts of India it was only after the East India Company, and later HMG were well established that it was made mandatory for a person to have a surname. Hence some persons selected a surname descriptive of their occupation, their city of origin, and so on.
As soon as we started to explore our surroundings, and to travel we discovered we were not alone. One name alone was often enough to identify us. A name, and a surname OTOH was not duplicated quite as frequently. Thus any community which used a name/surname to identify a person was probably governed more ... pragmatically than it's contemporaries. Governance aims at the community, but deals with individuals. Anthropologically, we may even assume that a community which used surnames was more advanced in terms of economy, and probably technology.
Not too far in the past, there was a time when travelling for a day meant a distance of perhaps 100kilometers at the most. For a long period of time travel by horse-back, cart, and buggy were perhaps the quickest means of travel. In such a time, living in relatively small communities most people would know each other by name. A surname was not necessary. Indeed, in some parts of India it was only after the East India Company, and later HMG were well established that it was made mandatory for a person to have a surname. Hence some persons selected a surname descriptive of their occupation, their city of origin, and so on.
As soon as we started to explore our surroundings, and to travel we discovered we were not alone. One name alone was often enough to identify us. A name, and a surname OTOH was not duplicated quite as frequently. Thus any community which used a name/surname to identify a person was probably governed more ... pragmatically than it's contemporaries. Governance aims at the community, but deals with individuals. Anthropologically, we may even assume that a community which used surnames was more advanced in terms of economy, and probably technology.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Practical Programming II - Community Development
Traditionally, the life of a Hindu is divided into several phases. These are, in order
Brahmacharya is the phase from infancy to childhood. During this period the youngling learns how to live in a community, is educated and probably apprenticed into trade.
The second phase, Grihastacharya, sees the child, now an adult, settle down professionally and in the community. He makes his contribution to the economy, and science of the community. In this phase of life, he also attends to the well-being & education of his children, mentoring them for their roles in the future. The children are now in the Brahmacharya phase. This phase typically closes after the children are themselves ready to move into the Grihast/Householder phase.
Vanprastha is a combination of two words - Vana[= Forest] + Prasthan[=move ]. The word means Move to the Forest. Traditionally, this means that the the Grihast, having fulfilled his active obligation to keep the community alive, and prosperous distance themselves to a remote location, purportedly to meditate. The phase is typically spoken of as meaning Retirement & Exile.
The final phase, Sanyaas, is that of oneness with the elements. I confess the phase is beyond my understanding.
Seen objectively, the 4 phases represent an orderly procession through life; at all times there is a generation in training for the next phase. The most obvious example is the Brahmacharya-Grihastacharya phase where the parents are in the Grihast phase and the children in the Brahmacharya phase.
The rules were obviously defined for the benefit of the community. Therefore to remove the invidual at what may be the peak of their professional life, when they may most contribute to the community seems counter-intuitive. Vanprastha however, is not only about retiring into seclusion. The description, passed down through generations, speaks not about seclusion, but about moving to distant places, and meditating. Seclusion although it may be considered as a passable synonym for moving to a remote place isn't quite the same. This, I believe, is the Key. Meditate means to think/dwell upon in the mind. Change the presently accepted definition from 'go to secluded places' to 'relocate to places remote from the present location' and the picture changes quite a bit. A person is irreplacable, the role fulfilled by a person is not. A person may fulfil a role even in places other than his own. This seems sensible, but it still raises the question about _why_ a person must leave from the place where his roots lie.
To relocate to a remote place is not the same as being alone. A remote place may still be a community but perhaps less evolved, for instance- a tribe. Even today, atleast 5000 years down the line from when the Vedas were composed lifestyle in urban centres is very different from that in hamlets, and villages. In a form of existence where there is little mechanization, the first person to move to a place proves that it is habitable, the others who appear fill requirements to form a community. When a person moves to a remote place, irrelevant of whether a community is already present his lifetime of experience acts as a solid bulwark. If a community/tribe is already in the vicinity, both the newcomer and the community stand to gain from the relationship. The former from the existence of the community and all that a community represents [companionship & help]. The latter from the experience which the newcomer brings with him - knowledge, and technology. Over time, a remote tribe may become a community centre if there are enough persons with experience in the vicinity. It is then on the way to become an urban centre.
The press of tradition, community, and peers can only make a person do so much. Every one of us has a desire to create something memorable. An urban community with all the ready resources it provides, is also an extremely crowded place.. one where time and creative thought are difficult to come by. Vanprastha was the research labs, and Community Development Center of the ancients, not Retirement & Exile.
Brahmacharya is the phase from infancy to childhood. During this period the youngling learns how to live in a community, is educated and probably apprenticed into trade.
The second phase, Grihastacharya, sees the child, now an adult, settle down professionally and in the community. He makes his contribution to the economy, and science of the community. In this phase of life, he also attends to the well-being & education of his children, mentoring them for their roles in the future. The children are now in the Brahmacharya phase. This phase typically closes after the children are themselves ready to move into the Grihast/Householder phase.
Vanprastha is a combination of two words - Vana[= Forest] + Prasthan[=move ]. The word means Move to the Forest. Traditionally, this means that the the Grihast, having fulfilled his active obligation to keep the community alive, and prosperous distance themselves to a remote location, purportedly to meditate. The phase is typically spoken of as meaning Retirement & Exile.
The final phase, Sanyaas, is that of oneness with the elements. I confess the phase is beyond my understanding.
Seen objectively, the 4 phases represent an orderly procession through life; at all times there is a generation in training for the next phase. The most obvious example is the Brahmacharya-Grihastacharya phase where the parents are in the Grihast phase and the children in the Brahmacharya phase.
The rules were obviously defined for the benefit of the community. Therefore to remove the invidual at what may be the peak of their professional life, when they may most contribute to the community seems counter-intuitive. Vanprastha however, is not only about retiring into seclusion. The description, passed down through generations, speaks not about seclusion, but about moving to distant places, and meditating. Seclusion although it may be considered as a passable synonym for moving to a remote place isn't quite the same. This, I believe, is the Key. Meditate means to think/dwell upon in the mind. Change the presently accepted definition from 'go to secluded places' to 'relocate to places remote from the present location' and the picture changes quite a bit. A person is irreplacable, the role fulfilled by a person is not. A person may fulfil a role even in places other than his own. This seems sensible, but it still raises the question about _why_ a person must leave from the place where his roots lie.
To relocate to a remote place is not the same as being alone. A remote place may still be a community but perhaps less evolved, for instance- a tribe. Even today, atleast 5000 years down the line from when the Vedas were composed lifestyle in urban centres is very different from that in hamlets, and villages. In a form of existence where there is little mechanization, the first person to move to a place proves that it is habitable, the others who appear fill requirements to form a community. When a person moves to a remote place, irrelevant of whether a community is already present his lifetime of experience acts as a solid bulwark. If a community/tribe is already in the vicinity, both the newcomer and the community stand to gain from the relationship. The former from the existence of the community and all that a community represents [companionship & help]. The latter from the experience which the newcomer brings with him - knowledge, and technology. Over time, a remote tribe may become a community centre if there are enough persons with experience in the vicinity. It is then on the way to become an urban centre.
The press of tradition, community, and peers can only make a person do so much. Every one of us has a desire to create something memorable. An urban community with all the ready resources it provides, is also an extremely crowded place.. one where time and creative thought are difficult to come by. Vanprastha was the research labs, and Community Development Center of the ancients, not Retirement & Exile.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Tsunami 2004: Divine Retribution
December 26, 2004 AD had the vacationers in the coastal areas of Indonesia adjacent to the Indian Ocean have their breakfast hours interrupted by an amazing sight. The ocean was retreating from existing shores; almost as if someone had pulled the drain-plug deep beneath the ocean. In a sense, it was true... but only for a very short time. Deep beneath the surface of the ocean, the Indo-Australian continental plate had ground against the Burma plate. The movement of the one plate downwards pulled the waters below, deep beneath the seemingly placid waters. The immediate result was a massive seismic tremor registering an almost unbelievable 9.1 on the Richter Scale. The less immediate result, a Tsunami, that totalled over 220,000 fatalities in Indonesia, India & Sri Lanka together. A large figure even without counting the losses in terms of property, and human experience.
Sometime before the quake, a week or so, a famous Seer in South India was arrested and held under the Penal Laws of India. Scores believed him to be innocent, but a great many also believed there was some basis for the charges under which he was held. The Tsunami was linked to the arrest by his supporters as proof of Divine Retribution.
A year later, the December 2005 issue of the Indian Edition of The Reader's Digest commemorated the anniversary of the Tsunami. This by replacing the bonus section with a series of eyewitness accounts of survivors. Among the several photographs in the issue was high altitude photograph of a place named Meulaboh. Meulaboh had a population of 50,000 humans. With the exception of a mosque, the photograph was devoid of any sign of human construction. Bar the mosque, all structures were razed by the Tsunami. A phenomenon which led people to comment upon the Divine Will. A similar phenomenon [Similar in the sense it also relates to the survival of a construction for a theological purpose against high odds] is the fact that St. Paul's Cathedral in the United Kingdom during the entire course of the Battle for Britain received a Direct Hit during the War, but survives intact.
Before I proceed further, I must make a quick detour on theology. The" gist of Pascal's take on theology is simple.There may, or may not be a God. I may, or may not, believe in him. The only way to lose, is if God exists & I do not believe in him ... thereby earning condemnation to Hell. Therefore, I choose to Believe ; merely to be saved from condemnation to Hell. The argument appears to be selfish, and probably won't endear me to anyone ... but ask yourself, and deep down that voice which always has your well-being in mind will answer you. To the best of my knowledge, which admittedly is limited, most forms of belief have some thing to offer by way of afterlife, or in afterlife. It's an understandable tactic ; if some religious beliefs were able to guarantee a man's desires/aspirations fulfilled within a defined time-frame, they might be taken to court for breach of promise if the time-frame lapsed without the desires fulfilled. Therefore, guarantee that a person's desires to be fulfilled in the afterlife. After all we only hear talk of a few persons return, and none of them seem to have sued... Definitely good for the business..
If every single human had believed and had lived according to the virtues prescribed by various theological texts, a great many events would not have appeared in our History textbooks... perhaps our civilization would be a little different from what it appears to be, but I digress. To get back on the subject, the statement 'believe & be saved' may not be widely accepted as it is. But at some subconscious level, it must register. This is especially so in the case where we humans construct monuments to the God/s of our beliefs. An unscrupulous contractor would not hesitate to save on costs [or more apt, increase his gain] by substituting sand for cement, and use less rebars than required according to the design. The same person, however, will almost certainly think twice before doing the same when constructing a structure for a preternatural. The fear of retribution from a preternatural keeps a great many of us from indulging in actions/speech which may be deemed offensive. Structures made as a form of respect for a character from theology therefore are sturdier and more attention paid during the course of construction. The end result is a structure that is able to better withstand furies of nature, and man-made calamities such as armed conflict ... thereby providing 'proof' of the existence of a God.
Sometime before the quake, a week or so, a famous Seer in South India was arrested and held under the Penal Laws of India. Scores believed him to be innocent, but a great many also believed there was some basis for the charges under which he was held. The Tsunami was linked to the arrest by his supporters as proof of Divine Retribution.
A year later, the December 2005 issue of the Indian Edition of The Reader's Digest commemorated the anniversary of the Tsunami. This by replacing the bonus section with a series of eyewitness accounts of survivors. Among the several photographs in the issue was high altitude photograph of a place named Meulaboh. Meulaboh had a population of 50,000 humans. With the exception of a mosque, the photograph was devoid of any sign of human construction. Bar the mosque, all structures were razed by the Tsunami. A phenomenon which led people to comment upon the Divine Will. A similar phenomenon [Similar in the sense it also relates to the survival of a construction for a theological purpose against high odds] is the fact that St. Paul's Cathedral in the United Kingdom during the entire course of the Battle for Britain received a Direct Hit during the War, but survives intact.
Before I proceed further, I must make a quick detour on theology. The" gist of Pascal's take on theology is simple.There may, or may not be a God. I may, or may not, believe in him. The only way to lose, is if God exists & I do not believe in him ... thereby earning condemnation to Hell. Therefore, I choose to Believe ; merely to be saved from condemnation to Hell. The argument appears to be selfish, and probably won't endear me to anyone ... but ask yourself, and deep down that voice which always has your well-being in mind will answer you. To the best of my knowledge, which admittedly is limited, most forms of belief have some thing to offer by way of afterlife, or in afterlife. It's an understandable tactic ; if some religious beliefs were able to guarantee a man's desires/aspirations fulfilled within a defined time-frame, they might be taken to court for breach of promise if the time-frame lapsed without the desires fulfilled. Therefore, guarantee that a person's desires to be fulfilled in the afterlife. After all we only hear talk of a few persons return, and none of them seem to have sued... Definitely good for the business..
If every single human had believed and had lived according to the virtues prescribed by various theological texts, a great many events would not have appeared in our History textbooks... perhaps our civilization would be a little different from what it appears to be, but I digress. To get back on the subject, the statement 'believe & be saved' may not be widely accepted as it is. But at some subconscious level, it must register. This is especially so in the case where we humans construct monuments to the God/s of our beliefs. An unscrupulous contractor would not hesitate to save on costs [or more apt, increase his gain] by substituting sand for cement, and use less rebars than required according to the design. The same person, however, will almost certainly think twice before doing the same when constructing a structure for a preternatural. The fear of retribution from a preternatural keeps a great many of us from indulging in actions/speech which may be deemed offensive. Structures made as a form of respect for a character from theology therefore are sturdier and more attention paid during the course of construction. The end result is a structure that is able to better withstand furies of nature, and man-made calamities such as armed conflict ... thereby providing 'proof' of the existence of a God.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Practical Programming
The first question that comes to the mind of the inquisitive is – What is a program? Put simply, a program is merely a defined sequence of instructions that must be followed to perform a certain task. The word 'must' makes it obvious there is to be no deviation from the sequence defined; even an automaton with no more intelligence than the ability to follow the sequence may achieve the expected result. Of course, if the sequence may throw some unexpected situations as a result of one or more instruction intelligence may then be required. The may is subject to the degree of customization provided to deal with the unexpected. The simplest way, obviously, is to deal with all unexpected situations with a single yardstick.
Thus if the task is 'clean'; the sequence of instructions may be
a) Start
b) Identify Dusty
c) Remove Dust
d) Repeat from b) until no more surface Dusty
e) Stop
Obviously, this is a rudimentary sequence. As the art of programming evolves, we find it is not necessary to have the instructions repeated ad infinitum. It is enough to define the instructions independently and only provide the necessary input with each call. But this still has a drawback; the step c) may vary depending upon the input provided. For instance – removal of dust from a glass surface is best aided by application of some fluid. But removing dust from, say, a computer motherboard with a fluid is a definite no-no. Therefore we realize while the task 'clean' is a generic description, the actual cleaning is specific and depends upon what is to be cleaned.
Anthropologically, the caste system is not very different. The origins of the Caste system are shrouded by mists of time, and beliefs. What we do know for certain about the Caste system, as identified by the Aryans in India is that there were 4 primary castes –
Kshatria/Kshatriya/Warrior,
I wonder whether the term Kshatria may not simply mean kshatra, chattra/umbrella as we use the term in present day hindi. The purpose of an umbrella is to provide shelter/respite from the elements. The Kshatria therefore becomes the caste that holds the umbrella[for the members of the community, where the term community refers to all regardless of caste].
Brahmana/Priest/Intelligentsia,
Vaishya/Merchant,
Shudra/Menial Tasks.
Similarly, I wonder whether the term Shudra may not be related to the term 'shudh/shuddh/purify', as we use the term in the present day. The term itself is Sanskrit, and means Purify. While the suffix 'ra' is unknown to me, i wonder whether the term may not then refer to the people who bore the responsibility of keeping the habitat spic-and-span, so to speak... obviously a far cry from the apparently derogatory 'untouchable'.
We therefore have the caste system as being task/function oriented; not a very original idea, but I choose to believe it.
Why did the ancients consider it worthwhile to divide the society so? Did they not realize that such a divided society might not survive? They certainly did, and if we are to believe even the most conservative of estimates the society, as split into castes, has survived for atleast a millenium. The divisions obviously served a purpose which we do not seem to recognize today.
To a programmer, the caste system is a classic example of object oriented programming theory. OOP is built upon the properties
i. Encapsulation/Confinement of knowledge
ii. Generalization and specialization
iii. Inheritance/Propagation of knowledge through heirarchy
In object oriented programming OOP, in short] a program is comprised of a number of objects. Each object is based upon a defined template, with properties and responsibility assigned. Such template is referred to as a 'class'.
Thus, for instance the above sequence of instructions may be represented as a class with the property and responsibility as mentioned below
class Cleaner Responsibility: Identify Dirty, Perform Cleaning Uses: Cleaning instrument
The advantage of such a classification is the knowledge is then encapsulated or confined. Thus the knowledge of cleaning is now the responsibility of Cleaner. The question is – why confine the knowledge? The answer – because encapsulation helps prevent misuse. Imagine what may happen if one intended to dry-clean the control panel in a nuclear submarine!
Jokes apart, a more practical reason to encapsulate knowledge is this - Delegation of a task frees the delegator to undertake other tasks. Thus in a society comprised of various castes, as mentioned earlier, a warrior need not worry himself overly about living in unsanitary surroundings because it would be handled by the section of the society responsible for that task. Similarly, the menial labourer would not need to concern himself with things other than his own task because it would be handled by the sections of society responsible for those tasks. Commerce handled by the Merchants, planning for the future of the society by the intelligentsia, protection of the society by the warriors, and so on.
Moving on to the twin properties of Generalization & Specialization, the task of cleaning itself is a very broad definition. For instance, cleaning a glass plate is quite different from dry cleaning a silk cloth. If the one method is applied to the other, it may not have quite the expected result. The task of cleaning may be further narrowed down, to improve efficiency.
We see similarities applied in everyday life. A bank may be a good example; when one enters a bank the obvious task has something to do with money... a loan, or a payment, or a withdrawal, or a deposit. Again, each of these may have their own hidden subtleties. Ideally, we do not need to know more about what goes on behind the closed doors to be able to use the facilities better.
OOP has another advantage; a property termed as Inheritance. By inheriting from an existing class, the knowledge encapsulated by the original class is made available to the inherited/child class without significant additional effort required. The parallel, as applied to the Caste System is apt.
The more one is exposed to a profession from childhood days, the more one inculcates. There is the argument that the knowledge gained by a generation may be passed on to subsequent generations by means of writing/pictorial representation and so forth. Documentation is useful. The practice of documentation helps to convey some portion of the knowledge to newcombers in the profession ... we see that frequently in the field of programming, perhaps in all professions nowadays. Reading conveys part of an experience. Listening to the person who experienced it, with all the vocal inflections and facial expressions is something different altogether. However one has to live an experience to brand it into memory.
There is, of course, the drawback that such hereditary knowledge may result in stagnation. I concede the point with the example of what the Caste system is, as it exists as we see it today. We do not know, with any degree of certainty, the origin and the rationale, and yet it persists mostly because it 'is traditional'.
Thus if the task is 'clean'; the sequence of instructions may be
a) Start
b) Identify Dusty
c) Remove Dust
d) Repeat from b) until no more surface Dusty
e) Stop
Obviously, this is a rudimentary sequence. As the art of programming evolves, we find it is not necessary to have the instructions repeated ad infinitum. It is enough to define the instructions independently and only provide the necessary input with each call. But this still has a drawback; the step c) may vary depending upon the input provided. For instance – removal of dust from a glass surface is best aided by application of some fluid. But removing dust from, say, a computer motherboard with a fluid is a definite no-no. Therefore we realize while the task 'clean' is a generic description, the actual cleaning is specific and depends upon what is to be cleaned.
Anthropologically, the caste system is not very different. The origins of the Caste system are shrouded by mists of time, and beliefs. What we do know for certain about the Caste system, as identified by the Aryans in India is that there were 4 primary castes –
Kshatria/Kshatriya/Warrior,
I wonder whether the term Kshatria may not simply mean kshatra, chattra/umbrella as we use the term in present day hindi. The purpose of an umbrella is to provide shelter/respite from the elements. The Kshatria therefore becomes the caste that holds the umbrella[for the members of the community, where the term community refers to all regardless of caste].
Brahmana/Priest/Intelligentsia,
Vaishya/Merchant,
Shudra/Menial Tasks.
Similarly, I wonder whether the term Shudra may not be related to the term 'shudh/shuddh/purify', as we use the term in the present day. The term itself is Sanskrit, and means Purify. While the suffix 'ra' is unknown to me, i wonder whether the term may not then refer to the people who bore the responsibility of keeping the habitat spic-and-span, so to speak... obviously a far cry from the apparently derogatory 'untouchable'.
We therefore have the caste system as being task/function oriented; not a very original idea, but I choose to believe it.
Why did the ancients consider it worthwhile to divide the society so? Did they not realize that such a divided society might not survive? They certainly did, and if we are to believe even the most conservative of estimates the society, as split into castes, has survived for atleast a millenium. The divisions obviously served a purpose which we do not seem to recognize today.
To a programmer, the caste system is a classic example of object oriented programming theory. OOP is built upon the properties
i. Encapsulation/Confinement of knowledge
ii. Generalization and specialization
iii. Inheritance/Propagation of knowledge through heirarchy
In object oriented programming OOP, in short] a program is comprised of a number of objects. Each object is based upon a defined template, with properties and responsibility assigned. Such template is referred to as a 'class'.
Thus, for instance the above sequence of instructions may be represented as a class with the property and responsibility as mentioned below
class Cleaner Responsibility: Identify Dirty, Perform Cleaning Uses: Cleaning instrument
The advantage of such a classification is the knowledge is then encapsulated or confined. Thus the knowledge of cleaning is now the responsibility of Cleaner. The question is – why confine the knowledge? The answer – because encapsulation helps prevent misuse. Imagine what may happen if one intended to dry-clean the control panel in a nuclear submarine!
Jokes apart, a more practical reason to encapsulate knowledge is this - Delegation of a task frees the delegator to undertake other tasks. Thus in a society comprised of various castes, as mentioned earlier, a warrior need not worry himself overly about living in unsanitary surroundings because it would be handled by the section of the society responsible for that task. Similarly, the menial labourer would not need to concern himself with things other than his own task because it would be handled by the sections of society responsible for those tasks. Commerce handled by the Merchants, planning for the future of the society by the intelligentsia, protection of the society by the warriors, and so on.
Moving on to the twin properties of Generalization & Specialization, the task of cleaning itself is a very broad definition. For instance, cleaning a glass plate is quite different from dry cleaning a silk cloth. If the one method is applied to the other, it may not have quite the expected result. The task of cleaning may be further narrowed down, to improve efficiency.
We see similarities applied in everyday life. A bank may be a good example; when one enters a bank the obvious task has something to do with money... a loan, or a payment, or a withdrawal, or a deposit. Again, each of these may have their own hidden subtleties. Ideally, we do not need to know more about what goes on behind the closed doors to be able to use the facilities better.
OOP has another advantage; a property termed as Inheritance. By inheriting from an existing class, the knowledge encapsulated by the original class is made available to the inherited/child class without significant additional effort required. The parallel, as applied to the Caste System is apt.
The more one is exposed to a profession from childhood days, the more one inculcates. There is the argument that the knowledge gained by a generation may be passed on to subsequent generations by means of writing/pictorial representation and so forth. Documentation is useful. The practice of documentation helps to convey some portion of the knowledge to newcombers in the profession ... we see that frequently in the field of programming, perhaps in all professions nowadays. Reading conveys part of an experience. Listening to the person who experienced it, with all the vocal inflections and facial expressions is something different altogether. However one has to live an experience to brand it into memory.
There is, of course, the drawback that such hereditary knowledge may result in stagnation. I concede the point with the example of what the Caste system is, as it exists as we see it today. We do not know, with any degree of certainty, the origin and the rationale, and yet it persists mostly because it 'is traditional'.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Rambling on about ... lifestyle
I was playing trivia on DALNet (www.triviaholic.net) when this question came up - What is the name of the traditional indian form of exercise? Easy question - A: Yogasanas.
As a kid, I was able to perform various yogic positions, or asanas as they are referred to in the vernacular. That question prompted me to attempt the Lotus position, or padmasana. I got the position, with a little effort, and felt pretty pleased with myself ... until I discovered, to my chagrin, I couldn't get out of the position!! I have since been practicing regularly, and expect to be able to get over my ummm fear of the lotus position. Google came up with a number of web-sites, but the one that gets my vote is this one -
www.yogajournal.com Anyway, take my advice. Dont' ever practice yogasans when puppy may come in and sniff-tickle you off your balance.
We hear off-and-on about various forms of exercise [martial,and otherwise]- Yogasanas, Tai'chi, Judo, Quigong, and so on. All these forms of exercise, seem to have two things in common.
i. Ensure a supple spine, and good posture
ii. Practice controlled breathing.
As babies, our bodies are naturally supple to an extent that seems almost impossible to most adults. Just try to hold your big toe to your mouth and suck upon it, if you don't believe me!! A baby does it with an ease most of us grown ups cannot.
As we learn to use our mind and settle into the world socially in the 'accepted way of life', our body loses the flexibility it was born with. By and large, the accepted form is increasingly influenced by what is spoken of as 'Western culture'. Lunch and Dinner in the classical European form, i'm unsure of the nation of origin, require a table and a chair. On the other hand, meals [even
traditionally] in India are believed to have been consumed sitting cross-legged on the floor. It is only in the recent past that I heard the cross legged position actually stimulates the abdominal muscles.. compressing the right organs to promote digestion. While the previous statement may, or may not be accurate, i find myself wondering whether there a middle-way that allows us to grow technologically, and yet refrain from a sedentary lifestyle?
As a kid, I was able to perform various yogic positions, or asanas as they are referred to in the vernacular. That question prompted me to attempt the Lotus position, or padmasana. I got the position, with a little effort, and felt pretty pleased with myself ... until I discovered, to my chagrin, I couldn't get out of the position!! I have since been practicing regularly, and expect to be able to get over my ummm fear of the lotus position. Google came up with a number of web-sites, but the one that gets my vote is this one -
www.yogajournal.com Anyway, take my advice. Dont' ever practice yogasans when puppy may come in and sniff-tickle you off your balance.
We hear off-and-on about various forms of exercise [martial,and otherwise]- Yogasanas, Tai'chi, Judo, Quigong, and so on. All these forms of exercise, seem to have two things in common.
i. Ensure a supple spine, and good posture
ii. Practice controlled breathing.
As babies, our bodies are naturally supple to an extent that seems almost impossible to most adults. Just try to hold your big toe to your mouth and suck upon it, if you don't believe me!! A baby does it with an ease most of us grown ups cannot.
As we learn to use our mind and settle into the world socially in the 'accepted way of life', our body loses the flexibility it was born with. By and large, the accepted form is increasingly influenced by what is spoken of as 'Western culture'. Lunch and Dinner in the classical European form, i'm unsure of the nation of origin, require a table and a chair. On the other hand, meals [even
traditionally] in India are believed to have been consumed sitting cross-legged on the floor. It is only in the recent past that I heard the cross legged position actually stimulates the abdominal muscles.. compressing the right organs to promote digestion. While the previous statement may, or may not be accurate, i find myself wondering whether there a middle-way that allows us to grow technologically, and yet refrain from a sedentary lifestyle?
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Economics? ... or Gaia?
In some distant time, some prehistoric being had a duel with his contemporary. That duel is what economics is all about. We still compete with each other, as nations, as communities for whatever resources Nature may choose to provide us with, as scant as they may be. Instead of One-on-One duels, the conflict is less overt, but the competition is there... The choice to use the word 'competition' instead of 'conflict' is what grants us the right to call ourselves civilized.
Economics has changed much. Instead of having to risk life and limb in the search for bodily sustenance, a walk to the nearest shop is all that is needed. Instead of having to walk to the nearest waterhole for water, the knob on the faucet gives us the water from the city. Modern medicine backed by technological advancements have increased longevity; afflictions such as Tuberculosis which were deemed deadly and seemingly incurable can now be defeated. The dark which gave deadly predators such an advantage is now banished at the flick of a switch. Agriculture and Food go together; as do Transport and Communication. Food comes from Agriculture, and is required when we start to range long distances for purposes of communication ... or simply to move to another place. The ability to tame animals to provide transport, and to subdue nature to make our own food granted to humans an advantage over other predators who were unable to do the same. The ability to manipulate nature has made us the dominant species on land, from where the Human Civilization is even now reaching to the stars.
The desire of possessions, and the fear of losing possessions drives economics. Tenuous as our hold on life is, we subconsciously use our possessions to bolster our belief that we are in control. And yet, deep down we know the truth is to the contrary. We know our economics are based upon utilization of what Earth has garnered over hundreds of millions of years. We know that as our consumption of resources increases, Earth's resources decrease.
Insecurity drives the humans. Insecurity, and a need for what I can only describe as Solace. What our neighbour possesses we first envy, then desire to possess. It is not long before we need to assuage our faith in ourselves that our neighbour shall not outstrip us. In some persons, this manifests in a destructive tendency ... to spoil what our neighbour possesses. To other persons, it is a motivation for less potent action, to succeed in other fields. In either case, the result is Aggression. Aggression, and Insecurity together form a very potent force.
I am convinced what we term as civilization is only a form of metaprogramming (pardon the use of jargon); so to speak. Undirected metaprogramming, but metaprogramming nonetheless. What civilization really does is this -
Instead of competing with our planetary co-habitants for resources provided/available on the planet, we usurp control. After usurping control of a resource, we compete amongst our own species for it's use. That the resource may not be best suited for the use we put it to, or that the resource needs to be utilized sparingly is knowledge that may come to notice too late.
Perhaps if other species had the ability to manipulate nature as we do, they would do just what we have done. Ants, Bees, and Spiders are a case in point ... as are Viruses.
Before it is too late, we as a species, need to set a goal
- to understand ourselves as a species
- to communicate better with our co-habiting species across our limited audio-visual capabilities
Gaia?
Economics has changed much. Instead of having to risk life and limb in the search for bodily sustenance, a walk to the nearest shop is all that is needed. Instead of having to walk to the nearest waterhole for water, the knob on the faucet gives us the water from the city. Modern medicine backed by technological advancements have increased longevity; afflictions such as Tuberculosis which were deemed deadly and seemingly incurable can now be defeated. The dark which gave deadly predators such an advantage is now banished at the flick of a switch. Agriculture and Food go together; as do Transport and Communication. Food comes from Agriculture, and is required when we start to range long distances for purposes of communication ... or simply to move to another place. The ability to tame animals to provide transport, and to subdue nature to make our own food granted to humans an advantage over other predators who were unable to do the same. The ability to manipulate nature has made us the dominant species on land, from where the Human Civilization is even now reaching to the stars.
The desire of possessions, and the fear of losing possessions drives economics. Tenuous as our hold on life is, we subconsciously use our possessions to bolster our belief that we are in control. And yet, deep down we know the truth is to the contrary. We know our economics are based upon utilization of what Earth has garnered over hundreds of millions of years. We know that as our consumption of resources increases, Earth's resources decrease.
Insecurity drives the humans. Insecurity, and a need for what I can only describe as Solace. What our neighbour possesses we first envy, then desire to possess. It is not long before we need to assuage our faith in ourselves that our neighbour shall not outstrip us. In some persons, this manifests in a destructive tendency ... to spoil what our neighbour possesses. To other persons, it is a motivation for less potent action, to succeed in other fields. In either case, the result is Aggression. Aggression, and Insecurity together form a very potent force.
I am convinced what we term as civilization is only a form of metaprogramming (pardon the use of jargon); so to speak. Undirected metaprogramming, but metaprogramming nonetheless. What civilization really does is this -
Instead of competing with our planetary co-habitants for resources provided/available on the planet, we usurp control. After usurping control of a resource, we compete amongst our own species for it's use. That the resource may not be best suited for the use we put it to, or that the resource needs to be utilized sparingly is knowledge that may come to notice too late.
Perhaps if other species had the ability to manipulate nature as we do, they would do just what we have done. Ants, Bees, and Spiders are a case in point ... as are Viruses.
Before it is too late, we as a species, need to set a goal
- to understand ourselves as a species
- to communicate better with our co-habiting species across our limited audio-visual capabilities
Gaia?
Friday, September 09, 2005
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Insecurity.
Homo Sapiens, at some point of time apparently co-existed with other erect bipedals. In all probability, Homo Neanderthalis was still around when we appeared on the scene. Perhaps they did not flourish in the sense of flourish as we know it, but they were around for atleast several millenia. Wehave only been here for a fraction of the time our cousins were. Perhaps our cousins did not have to deal with the kind of climatic changes we have had. The ice-age we survived killed off a great many species who were unable to adapt, our cousins the other bipedals certainly were whittled down in numbers.
I begin to think there is something drastically wrong with our genetic/psychological makeup. We are rarely, if ever, satisfied and at peace with ourself. Insecurity drives us. We thrive on challenges. We find creative solutions when something threatens our peace of mind. At some point of time we probably lived in trees when we were not out looking for food. We could not survive individually, our primate ancestors had already faced this problem; the solution was to live and hunt/forage in groups. Our constitutions and mental make-up discovered it was possible to avoid sleeping out in the rain, open to the risk of other predators by moving to caves. Then we found that caves were few and far in-between, we solved this problem by erecting temporary shelters. By this stage we were already hunting, not with our bare hands, but with more lethal weapons. Weapons were not always handy at the location of the hung; we experienced the need to carry things some we carried in our hands, for the others we invented transport. Somewhere along the line we found some of us did some things better, which others did not. Possesiveness made it's prescence felt, and we discovered trade. We would barter with others for things they were good at, in exchange for what we were good at. Instead of a simple exchange, things now had a value associated with them. What something meant to one person would not neccessarily mean the same to another person. In addition, what one person had to barter need not neccessarily be available in long distances. A comparitive value system had to come into existence : Money. We also learnt of our feeble mortality and life-spans. What one person learnt during the course of his life would be used by others in the group and so on. Memories of events had to be communicated, a member of the group did not have to face a danger to recognize it if another member had already experienced it. To begin with we communicated , perhaps, only by gestures and sounds. Then, somebody discovered pictographic representation made it easier to get the idea across; Writing was invented. We had a means to document and transmit knowledge, but not the emotions associated with an event. Language expanded with the need to convey emotions, even if in a very rudimentary form with the equivalent of terms that have evolved to 'serene', and 'grisly' as we use them nowadays. We found we did not need to forage; less agressive animals could be approached and negotiated with for various purposes; Agriculture, Beast of burden and Conveyence. During one of those days we found Fire was not something that would always destroy us, if handled with caution. We did not need to fear cloudy and moonless nights any more; it was another big step forward. All the while we were driven by the subconscious fear of our own fallibility. "Whatever is to be done must be done today, for there may be no tomorrow".
For the most part our species
i. can not wait.
ii. must have some comfort
It was not enough for us to move at our own pace, we had to move faster. Walking, Running, Riding, Driving [cart, carriage, automotive], and finally Flying. It was not enough for us to 'go there' and communicate. We had to invent means to communicate even in our physical absence- Sketches, Heirloglyphs, Phonetic languages ... more recently the internet.
We discovered safety in numbers. From clusters of huts/houses to villages, to towns, through cities and finally Metropolis. We gather in a city, apparently a permanent rather than a nomadic lifestyle and claim ourselves civilized. We use 'economy' to provide the bare requirements for us - food, and shelter. We use Earth's resources to provide us with Energy for our requirements of movement, communication; Oil, Natural Gas, Radioactive Elements. All provided by this planet, Our Home and Our Own Earth. All capable of providing Energy for only so long.
Is it only I that is insecure and imagining a Sword of Damocles hanging over our head the day we realize our present lifestyles need drastic rethinking?
I begin to think there is something drastically wrong with our genetic/psychological makeup. We are rarely, if ever, satisfied and at peace with ourself. Insecurity drives us. We thrive on challenges. We find creative solutions when something threatens our peace of mind. At some point of time we probably lived in trees when we were not out looking for food. We could not survive individually, our primate ancestors had already faced this problem; the solution was to live and hunt/forage in groups. Our constitutions and mental make-up discovered it was possible to avoid sleeping out in the rain, open to the risk of other predators by moving to caves. Then we found that caves were few and far in-between, we solved this problem by erecting temporary shelters. By this stage we were already hunting, not with our bare hands, but with more lethal weapons. Weapons were not always handy at the location of the hung; we experienced the need to carry things some we carried in our hands, for the others we invented transport. Somewhere along the line we found some of us did some things better, which others did not. Possesiveness made it's prescence felt, and we discovered trade. We would barter with others for things they were good at, in exchange for what we were good at. Instead of a simple exchange, things now had a value associated with them. What something meant to one person would not neccessarily mean the same to another person. In addition, what one person had to barter need not neccessarily be available in long distances. A comparitive value system had to come into existence : Money. We also learnt of our feeble mortality and life-spans. What one person learnt during the course of his life would be used by others in the group and so on. Memories of events had to be communicated, a member of the group did not have to face a danger to recognize it if another member had already experienced it. To begin with we communicated , perhaps, only by gestures and sounds. Then, somebody discovered pictographic representation made it easier to get the idea across; Writing was invented. We had a means to document and transmit knowledge, but not the emotions associated with an event. Language expanded with the need to convey emotions, even if in a very rudimentary form with the equivalent of terms that have evolved to 'serene', and 'grisly' as we use them nowadays. We found we did not need to forage; less agressive animals could be approached and negotiated with for various purposes; Agriculture, Beast of burden and Conveyence. During one of those days we found Fire was not something that would always destroy us, if handled with caution. We did not need to fear cloudy and moonless nights any more; it was another big step forward. All the while we were driven by the subconscious fear of our own fallibility. "Whatever is to be done must be done today, for there may be no tomorrow".
For the most part our species
i. can not wait.
ii. must have some comfort
It was not enough for us to move at our own pace, we had to move faster. Walking, Running, Riding, Driving [cart, carriage, automotive], and finally Flying. It was not enough for us to 'go there' and communicate. We had to invent means to communicate even in our physical absence- Sketches, Heirloglyphs, Phonetic languages ... more recently the internet.
We discovered safety in numbers. From clusters of huts/houses to villages, to towns, through cities and finally Metropolis. We gather in a city, apparently a permanent rather than a nomadic lifestyle and claim ourselves civilized. We use 'economy' to provide the bare requirements for us - food, and shelter. We use Earth's resources to provide us with Energy for our requirements of movement, communication; Oil, Natural Gas, Radioactive Elements. All provided by this planet, Our Home and Our Own Earth. All capable of providing Energy for only so long.
Is it only I that is insecure and imagining a Sword of Damocles hanging over our head the day we realize our present lifestyles need drastic rethinking?
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Change
The golden age was first; when Man yet new,
No rule but uncorrupted reason knew:
And, with a native bent, did good pursue.
Unforc'd by punishment, un-aw'd by fear,
His words were simple, and his soul sincere;
Needless was written law, where none opprest:
The law of Man was written in his breast:
Quoted from Ovid's Metamorphoses - http://classics.mit.edu/Ovid/metam.1.first.html
Life is all about Change ... and how it fascinates us. The unknown tugs at our sense of discovery. The opportunity to broaden our horizons is like the flame to the moth; Not infrequently, we proceed heedless of the instinct for self-preservation that cautions us so. That which is apparently obvious is often passed over in favour of that which titillates our imagination.
No rule but uncorrupted reason knew:
And, with a native bent, did good pursue.
Unforc'd by punishment, un-aw'd by fear,
His words were simple, and his soul sincere;
Needless was written law, where none opprest:
The law of Man was written in his breast:
Quoted from Ovid's Metamorphoses - http://classics.mit.edu/Ovid/metam.1.first.html
Life is all about Change ... and how it fascinates us. The unknown tugs at our sense of discovery. The opportunity to broaden our horizons is like the flame to the moth; Not infrequently, we proceed heedless of the instinct for self-preservation that cautions us so. That which is apparently obvious is often passed over in favour of that which titillates our imagination.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
First post
My colleague at work said 'All Firsts are memorable' at the farewell we organized for him. This was his first real job, and he had been with the firm for nearly 7 years. The comment was typical Mukesh as I knew him; short, to-the-point, and typically under-stated.
One may easily lose the depth of that statement; that one line tells so much about the Human race. Everything we do, we learn and remember. It is part of why Homo Sapiens Sapiens is different from other species on this planet. Every experience is new, and ( usually ) the way we deal with a situation is influenced by similar past experience. Memory, the ability to co-relate situations, and then to extrapolate are what make us unique ... what make us human.
Everything we ever do is there in our minds; and yet we do not always know it. As with the physical world, we usually prefer what gives us a sense of happiness and relaxation, and build a shell against what hurts. Yet the memory is ... there, as are memories everything associated with that particular situation. Let a remotely similar situation arise, and the hurt shall rush back with a vengeance for the time it was imprisoned beyond walls. Hurt and Pain are the price we pay for a memory, as a memory is the price we pay to live.
One may easily lose the depth of that statement; that one line tells so much about the Human race. Everything we do, we learn and remember. It is part of why Homo Sapiens Sapiens is different from other species on this planet. Every experience is new, and ( usually ) the way we deal with a situation is influenced by similar past experience. Memory, the ability to co-relate situations, and then to extrapolate are what make us unique ... what make us human.
Everything we ever do is there in our minds; and yet we do not always know it. As with the physical world, we usually prefer what gives us a sense of happiness and relaxation, and build a shell against what hurts. Yet the memory is ... there, as are memories everything associated with that particular situation. Let a remotely similar situation arise, and the hurt shall rush back with a vengeance for the time it was imprisoned beyond walls. Hurt and Pain are the price we pay for a memory, as a memory is the price we pay to live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
