Quest

The big bang happened, probably. Believed to be a superhot mass of neutrons and quanta. Neutrons gave rise to simple atoms like hydrogen. The big bang also gave rise to scatters of dense matter at high temperatures of ten of millions of degrees, like the sun. This temperature facilitates conditions rarely met in our realm which leads to nuclear reactions. Helium from Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon from Helium and so on.

Somewhere due to some happy coincidence, or a long string of happy coincidences, complex combinations of these elements were formed. One of these complex molecules, chlorophyll, had a peculiar quality of absorbing radiation of particular frequency incident on it from the sun (the radiation arising from the nuclear reactions which lead to formation of Carbon,etc., incidentally) and using it to convert two compounds (water and CO2) into glucose. (What struck me the most here, call me a slowpoke if you will, is that chlorophyll is THE gateway for life on earth!! What other molecule harnesses photons incident on it and makes life essential glucose?)

With time, changes occurred on the smaller time scale and led to us, the human form, which can sit and comprehend this. Come to think of it, each "coincidence" has a probability associated, correct? And in the whole process of big bang to me sitting here typing has a number of coincidences which even the most powerful computer cannot process. I am really limited here by my own imaginations of HUGE. The actual order of that number might be the number which I'm thinking raised to itself. (God, if exists and is reading this, will definitely laugh at the minuscule number that the farthest of my imagination can permit, but hey the fact that it permits this far an imagination? His own victory)

Probabilities of uncorrelated events multiply. Multiply all these probabilities of all these events (assume this for simplicity). The inverse is probably (interesting word, this, don't you think?) the order of magnitude of size of the universe. It is this size the universe has to take so that there are combinations of elements, a peculiar combination of the pool of matter (which forms an equally tiny fraction of the sum of all matter), on this tiny bit called Earth. This combination of elements here, call it human. It uses the matter formed via all these unlikely events (a probability of one in million would be called unlikely wouldn't it, on our scale?),this is the remarkable thing, it uses this matter to facilitate it to study it's own bearings!! It can ponder on temperatures of billions. It can make theories on the very existence of itself! If it was by chance that some crucial event occurred for the world to be what it is today, I am really glad that it did. I do not know what a human benefits out of such pondering, which really begs the question of why, why are we here? Why do we exist?

I read a statement by Fred Hoyle (it is from his book that I got the inspiration for writing this particular ramble) that the smallest functional protein formation has odds like some millions of earths all solving the rubik's cube together, or something of that sort, I'm really not sure, but you get the gist.

Grander the scale of things there are bound to be events further away from the mean, yes? Outliers, statistics calls it. The magnitude of things at the outset (temperature, pressure, mass, density what not) was actually so large that unexpected things should indeed be expected, is what I think in retrospect. Then again, since I simply cannot expect to have a grasp of all possible scales, I wonder if in the formation and bursting of bubbles in boiling water, entire universes are created and destroyed? Probably not, my limited (and thankfully so, otherwise can one be rational?) mind tells me. I ponder on. . .

Disclaimer: All this while if I appear erudite and scholarly and deep and what not, I wish to clarify that it is certainly not so. For if a person cannot think with sufficient clarity on a simple (relative to the above article) case of gas dissolving in liquid, one does not simply become a scholar by trying their luck at hypothesizing  about (largely) unexplained subjects. It is just a manifestation of the inevitable pondering of the brain upon itself.

On Various Things: From advertising to football.

Close to 4 years ago internet began growing rapidly reaching almost every household and college in India. Before that Advertising was through only one medium for the vast majority of its effectiveness. Television. You could simply not watch television to avoid their almost subliminal effects on your minds. Now however, with very sharp marketing managers with global exposures are thinking and working out their strategies (yes, strategies, since those 30 seconds on TV are sadly not the only things that they rely on these days) we are truly unaware of what we are faced with. I wished I could say "fighting" in place of "faced with" because we hardly are. It is almost like we are bent over. Without our knowledge of the fact, I might add. I had the good fortune of realising and feeling an advertising's effect on me. Cadbury has decided to step up its brand Gems' market share by starting with new innovative ads. Watching TV even for a limited time as I do since I am stuck to the computer for most of my time, I almost doubled back on catching the slightest of glimpses of the familiar box (the smallest side of the rectangular parallelopiped that too) and thankfully checked myself. Thankfully not because Gems is particularly harmful but I want to buy Gems when I want to eat them, not because there is an imprint of it's ad in my brain that tugs on the want center. An imprint that I don't want, an imprint that I didn't know about till that day. Subliminal indeed.

Advertisements do not have to be innovative even. My guess is the amount of innovation required depends on the product and your marketing angle. Launching something new or launching your product in an incredibly tight competition requires them managers to put on their thinking caps. Well ask the creative agents to do it for them probably. But when you have a large share of the market already, you probably won't waste your money on creativity. For creativity must needs come at a cost. Already have a major share? Bombard them with uncreative half-ass haphazard ads that shout out your product's name 10 times in 30 seconds just to keep people buying it like robots. Whether you need it or not. Take Cola ads for instance. Do you need to drink Cola? No. In India you'll get approximately 30 different drinks healthier (and cheaper!) than your cola. But nooooooo! We have to drink it for a complex web of reasons. To appear cooler, it tastes good, a false feeling of satisfaction because we see the likes of Sachin sighing in satisfaction and smacking his lips after a sip. Sachin, yes. The enigma. The God for Indian cricket lovers. If you haven't seen that brilliantly diabolical, guaranteed to be effective, brain surgery without operation of an ad of Cola count yourself lucky. It shows an arid desert area. The voice (don't get me started on that I have my Hyde-like theories on that smooth silky son of a gun of a voice that narrates straight into your head without resistance) tells you the details 42 deg C temperature, no caps, no shoes, no coin for toss, no real kit, make shift stumps, an abandoned truck for pavillion, an old battered aluminium can for drums, dirtied kids in old battered clothes but their faces lit up with smiles and here's where they've scored the first master stroke- cricket, yeh khel nahi, yeh zameen ki sacchi khushi hai (no real time provided to really think what this has got to do with anything, let alone cola, if anybody would bother thinking that is. Cricket is religion and religion, well for the most part is anti-thinking. Genius, sheer genius) and the second master stroke is the Little Master himself (switching brands apparently, another mini master stroke. I had to be reminded that he used to be with Pepsi. Memory is fickle, they've used it to their advantage) pulling out a bottle from the ice cooler (probably another thing, they've shown the smaller bottle, they've reduced its volume keeping the price same, and anyway smaller products have more margin. diseconomies of small scale) sipping it and saying khelte raho khush raho. Of course few people would have anything bad left to say from the little guilt of the first master stroke. If they really don't have coins for a toss, well I guess the ad suggests that they should satisfy themselves by just looking at Sachin drinking it. While for the rest who can indeed afford 10 rs, well go for it! Sachin says so. If Bhagwan Shiva came down from heavens sipping cola and encouraging you to do so, and not question whether it makes sense or not, would you then question Him? Of course not! We are not atheists now are we. Sit with your pudgy bellies and watch these good kids sweat it out on the telly if you have to. CocaCola will be saying, doesn't matter, increased sales! Other Cola ads are equally appalling, those cheesy tacky ads of Mountain Dew. I'd sooner believe I'd find Jadoo in my backyard saying Dhoop Dhoop than those stupid waste of time and money. But it is not about being rational now is it? Having a connection with the product at hand even seems to be uncool these days. I would look the Axe outrage of an ad in the eye and say ok, they've at least exaggerated some connection (albeit the thinnest one. Deodorants are expected to rid you of sweat odour first and foremost). But Coke, come on seriously? But these are good ads, strictly from the point of view of the company. I'm willing to bet my left ass that Coca Cola sales and profits have shot up since this ad came on air. I'd go ahead and safely bet even my right one that much of the increase comes from the 200ml bottles. Who am I to dissect an ad when I feel the ad working on my own educated and aware ass and do nothing but mutely and willingly bend over? I find this phrase coming up more and more often- unless you have been living in a cave you'd know falana falana. All of a sudden it doesn't seem like a bad idea.

Woah! look at that, I didn't even get to football and I'm not done ranting on advertising still. Bourneville. Fine elite brother of our beloved Cadbury's Dairy Milk. Dairy Milk also upped the ante by going on air with pseudo emotional bullshit of kuch meetha ho jaye. They're probably pointing their fingers at us and laughing their asses off right now. Such gullible folks, throw shit at them laced with emotions, family ties and cliched music and they swallow it hook, line and sinker. Now I'm not here pretending I'm some ultra aware sage-like guru who has complete control over his mind. Of course I've bought loads more of Cadbury since I saw those ads during Kaun Banega Crorepati just like you all did. All right coming to bourneville, some snooty British ass in his polished accent, accepts or dismisses Ghana cocoa beans on whether they are fit to become a Bourneville one day, with locals looking at this Judgement day classification of cocoa beans with a mixture of fear and awe. "He'll be a Bourneville one day" is good and all but the question of what happens to the dismissed beans goes begging. They have not said anything about their pickiness when it comes to dairymilk, does it mean that the bean that is so imperiously brushed off as "he's nothing" becomes a Dairymilk? Their motive is plain and simple, they are not aiming for making Bourneville the Gucci of chocolates, they just want you to bear in mind that there is a more expensive, and therefore associated with more status, brand of chocolate that you can buy. Job done. Do advertising colleges teach you to do just that? Be ruthless, do anything, dance around naked if that's what it takes to grab attention and imprint on our minds that we must buy these products the moment we set our eyes on them? I don't think so. It just comes in the new generations. They emulate their peers and competitors. For the most part, money is the only driver, and these are the richest buses. Not ironically. I pray to God that you and me have the courage to look a Coke bottle in the eye and say, not this time, no, not this time. I'm not saying we need to deprive us of everything that is shown in adverts even if it is a daily essential commodity, I'm just saying we need to be aware as we have no idea how powerful our minds are and they might have a slightly better idea..

"The Dark Arts are many, varied, ever-changing and eternal. Fighting them is like fighting a many-headed monster, which, each time a neck is severed, sprouts a head even fiercer and cleverer than before. You are fighting that which is unfixed, mutating, indestructible." 

Overkill, maybe, but definitely relevant.

There's always someone who will spread the propaganda that the villain is actually the hero. When you talk about Hitler this person will tell you that Hitler did so many wonderful things for German economy for this and that. Hitler was a goddamn mass murdering maniac and don't let nobody tell you otherwise. German economy and all could have been bettered even without the mass murdering, so what do you say to that? There is always a twisted or misled person who derives a twisted satisfaction from worshipping the villain. Hitler and his rule did horrible things to innocent people and no amount of economic growth is gonna offset that.
Karna is a villain from Mahabharata. The notion of him being the actual good guy is so popular that books have been written on it. Some of them just state some things and leave it to the reader to conclude that Krishna was the actual villain and others downright say so. I think they do that because they are intimidated by the character of Krishna. They are afraid that they can never be so fair and just and have the courage to do or stand by what is right. Such people seek to hide from the truth by deluding themselves. Finding justifications like being of "liberal thought", "different". And when someone comes along and gives an irrefutable argument they resort to bitching means. All this because they are afraid of seeking the truth, afraid that they are not strong enough to be a good person. I personally do not give a big deal to being different. I think I used to, but now I don't. Because see, Hitler was different! and look what that did! Nothing wrong in being a common man, now, is it? Taking cue from Russell Peters- Be a man! Do the right thing!

Morals ethics are all relative. Like a hologram, how you perceive depends on where you look from. From my angle it looks black without a doubt, but from somewhere else, it looks gray, maybe even white. Is there a right angle of sight? Is there a person who can possibly know which angle to look from to spot the truth? Is there a thing as truth? Or is it relative too? See if morals are all relative, what are they relative to? 

How we perceive is a function of our mind. As time passes, our brain gets "hard-wired" so to speak, and we begin reacting to things in increasingly constant patterns. The processing of familiar inputs is stored and iterates to a more or less fixed algorithm. What is, I believe, of essence is, the initial inputs given which passes through our mind's "transfer function" and gives a certain output, well that transfer function is what is subject to change in the early stages of the mind. for it takes in feedback of the output it generated from a particular input. so of essence is how and what are the combinations of input as well as feedbacks which lead to what is called a sound person.

(Feedback is probably the most important word, biologically. "feedback loops are the reason for multistationarity" think about it. if there were no feedback, every person would behave in only a way it was born with. that means, that other people would not have any effect on you ever. you are what you are right now because of the people that have come in your life. if THAT variable is taken out what makes you unique?! no multiple stationary points. before you know it the entire race would have been extinct.)

that soundness is also variable. As in, a person could be sound in one aspect, but apparently insane in other. That depends on what "transfer function" in the given context, has your brain reached, which as hypothized before, depends on inputs it faced during its formative period. Experiences. However, even a well drilled mind can be changed if an input of sufficient intensity were incident. As chemistry teaches us, it is not just intensity, but the wavelength of incident light is also important. An electron will absorb a photon only if it is of a particular wavelength. That change occurrence is brought about only by few. Accidental, yes, but if otherwise, be assured that such a person who can bring it about is an accomplished person.

If there is indeed a varying level of soundness, there must be a probability distribution. and since there are almost completely unsound persons, there must exist an almost completely sound person, eh? So is that person, what we are all relative to? what you want to see yourself relative to is also your own choice, though. You could be around average and compare yourself with the "bad" extreme :P So what I am saying is morals ethics etc are not just relative to each other, but to some fixed state too. Imagine if there was only one person on the earth. He could either be barbaric or be well behaved. It wouldn't matter though since no one would be there to give a fuck. :P that behaviour is not perceived by himself since there is no one else to compare and hence no feedback ! but still if you were an invisible observer, you could judge. So indeed there must be some point to which everything is relative, I conclude thus.