open vs closed...

being asked for an opinion on something, by people who matter or for whom the opinion matters, is an exhilarating experience, but it makes me nervous, for more reasons than one. possible undesirable attention this might draw to me, the fear of saying something without having thought through completely, the possibility that the other person sees that it is an integration of multiple other peoples’ opinions…(is there anything like an original opinion? :)

taking a firm stance on something doesn’t come very easily to me, or so I thought. also the fact that this seems to matter to the person asking and is for a significant reason is scarier…a friend pavan asked me if

“In the context of ICT in Education, do you (personally or Officially) have a stand on Open source versus proprietary debate.”

I didn’t think I did, or rather I do have one but didn’t think I felt strongly enough or had the gumption to take the stance…turns out I do and I did…

“Personally I have kind of a position not necessarily a stance. I am for open source. I think the idea of patenting itself is taken to ridiculous extents in the interests of cornering the market. In the area of food and drugs it is criminal I think.

For software

- the compulsion and tying down that comes with proprietary software is one serious issue I have. It is equivalent to monopolizing. You are compelled to buy lifelong maintenance services along with a product only because that’s where the profit comes from. And so the opaqueness of the software limits your freedom of choice in the long run (you cant switch to something else without paying a bomb to migrate).

- Another more fundamental issue I have is a bit more complex. You tie the user to a certain pattern of thinking through a software that is meant to function in a certain manner. For applications you may not see the difference but when it comes to say an operating system, for a learner it limits what you are allowed to learn, how you use the computer…and hence the nature of the computer as a product…in the long run these are big time issues. I have used Unix extensively in my earlier programming days. I knew so much more about the computer and how it works and this significantly improved my ability to problem-solve and do creative stuff in my programs than I can now. I don’t know how a PC functions anymore because Windows hides everything and I am unable to go beyond the user layer unless I learn windows programming (in unix even a lay user is automatically trained to know the os and the computer. Or I don’t use the keyboard at all, because Windows almost compels you to use the mouse…many other implications I think.

- In Education this has huge implications and I feel strongly about this!! Just imagine a child learning only one way of doing things on the computer. It is criminal!! Some state governments (also the GOI) have, much to my happiness, adopted the open source route. You should read the policy document. They clearly articulate the funda behind this.

Overall from a social perspective, I think we go overboard trying to safeguard one particular way of thinking about development or the economy (nowadays it is free market). And create mechanisms like patent, exclusivity solely to further this paradigm. It is a huge risk depending on a single mechanism, it only makes the larger system very fragile and dependent on this principle. We need to open up and explore other paradigms also in parallel.

For example the Copyleft idea is quite cool I think. It provides for making money also but doesn’t limit the user’s freedom. A particular way to create a particular software is developed and released to the user, so he/she can invent newer, better or other creative ways of creating the same product. The form in which the original one is, shou;ld to be paid for but you can change it…this is more free in the sense of freedom of choice.

Well, for someone who contends not to have a strong opinion I have been too articulate I ! Why do you ask? You should talk to someone else also.”

Prakash.

In the context of ICT in Education, do you (personally or Officially) have a stand on Open source versus proprietary debate. Do you know if APF has a stance ?

I might have a follow-up. Just a discussion for now..

Regards,

Pavan

impossiblity of transparency

i would like to believe that it is possible to be completely transparent in our interactions with people around us and the world in general.

at one level it is clearly expressing our thoughts and consciously ensuring the listener 'understands' really what we feel and hears our perspective to things, not just general things and opinions about life, but also about ourselves. the context we come from and hence the assumptions, the positions we are taking. combined with illustrations of our experiences that help clarify the way we are thinking. with people we are close to and share a deeper relationship, there is an added need to share our past, significant episodes from our life or even the seemingly trivial incidents and experiences that have made us the person we are. for example how we felt about our childhood, the kind of person we were during teenage, separations, death how we responded to them...

broadly what we share with people about ourselves fall in three categories - anecdotes and experiences (this happened with me when i was sixteen and this is how i felt then, this is how i feel now about that time), generalities (i am sensitive, somebody does something like this and it hurts me, you say this to me and it bothers me) and demonstrations (through actions, things we do for them, things that consciously (and sometimes unconsciously) demonstrate aspects of our personality).

i think i have been experimenting with this for a while now. in fact i could say i am significantly more transparent as a person than i was a few years ago. i wouldn't have for example confessed really how difficult i feel about writing. i seemed to be enjoying it before and i liked people to think of me that way, and the compliments i received about my writing skills. but now i feel compelled to say that i hate it. i hate the process of 'having to write'. and it makes me nervous. partly the hesitation to share this is because it involves acknowledging a vulnerability, but more importantly it is the possibility of jeopardizing my reputation as someone who could write well if he did it more often (thats the interesting catch. and so in reality this confession is interpreted as modesty and it is too tempting and so most often i let it be that way. i just hate that...

...but then i am not being transparent even now! 'writing' is too trivial an example to make a complex point. i should be giving another example. being a sensitive and nice person who has a serious compulsion to be 'morally right' as -m- calls it. i seem to have built this reputation for being a good person, not wanting to hurt someone even if it is at a cost to myself in terms of effort or pains i have to go through. be it work, in relationships...but i think this is untrue. i am callous, insensitive almost unconsciously, lazy in the amount of effort i would put to help someone. this demonstrates itself even if it means giving someone something i really like or doing my job well consistently or well putting effort in doing something for someone else. i think this side of me is compensated by other less important or even trivial things i do for others and thats the part of me that is seen. opinions about me are formed based on these instances. i can think of a few people who are justified in having this other opinion of me, -n- for instance.

a deeper issue with transparency is sharing information. there are numerous incidents in my life that could change the opinion even someone very close to me has of me. and it is probably incidental maybe that i have not shared this. say not having told -a- about this incident in my life when i think i was quite cruel to someone, in the way i broke a relationship, numerous thoughts that run in my mind about people that could at best be called disregard. the list can go on to more serious things!

i don't know if it is by choice that i dont share these things or if it is just incidental! choosing to think it is the latter is a matter of convenience and an acceptance of the impossibility of transparency. -m- is probably right, in that if this becomes a conscious decision and behaviour based on a theory of transparency that we want to comply with, it is no use! it is as good as being un-transparent!

absolute certainty - the wonder drug

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF3yb1g30Io

acerbic, harsh and quite ironically enough, dogmatic...insightful and articulate nevertheless!

us...and others

I am angry! very very angry! angry with everything, primary myself I think. everything seems so pointless. we live in an illusion that we are meaningful, deeply meaningful. we feel compelled to generalize fucking trivial things we do, and lend themselves major meaning. this gives us identity, makes us feel important.

we are perceived as creations that are consistent by others, but all i see within is confusion, contradictions, incompleteness.

everything we say, words that inadvertently or advertently pop out of our mouth, gestures, behaviours...they are all listened to, interpreted and an image is formed. and this image is stated to us, in words or otherwise.

and this helps us manufacture this picture perfect, consistent image of us! and we use this to moderate, manipulate our further behaviours. and more circumstances keep moulding this, yeah moulding, not influencing but bloody moulding.
so we are told we are sensitive and we are thoughtful and intelligent...so we have to continue employing our minds, our hearts in their presence and behave consistent to this perception.

and then different circumstances and different people 'expose' a newer nuance or a starkly different aspect of us. and we regenerate, we re-manufacture. this image needs to be consistent with that circumstance.

i am pissed off and dunno know with what! if only someone told me, i would behave the right way!

felt like quoting wonly...

...yet again!

woh afsana jise anjaam tak, lana na ho munkin
use ik khoobsoorat mod dekar chhodna achcha.

the aakrosh...

i saw govind nihalani's aakrosh again 2 weeks back. and well, i was disturbed. disturbed by what the movie says, the social, the political and the human issues the movie deals with. the spectrum of personalities that populate the script...

lahanya's father (nana palshikar) who has lived an oppressed life and is unconsciously but completely reconciled to the state of society and the inevitability of the oppression of the weak.
nagi (smita patil) who in her naivete refuses to read between the lines. assumes gestures and actions of people are what they are and for who it doesn't seem to occur at all that there could be invisible motives and some of them could be bad.
lahanya (om puri) the angry, the frustrated, who can not but see the oppression, the injustice, the power people wield and the helplessness that his community feels but he doesn't want to succumb to himself. neither does he have the deviousness or strength to fight the injustice, nor can he reconcile to it. alcohol and silent frustrated rage seem to be the only recourse...and in the midst of all this negativity, you see the overwhelming love he has for nagi. the pure human.
lahanya's sister, bewildered by the goings on and not knowing where she stands or what she is expected or supposed to do, or if at all it is possible to 'do' anything. probably understands what lahanya is trying to say, possibly believes he is right, but too scared and confused to proffer an opinion. she doesn't speak a word through the movie.
bhaskar (naseer) the idealist lawyer, fighting his first case with practically nothing to help him defend lahanya. but you see him going through various phases of realization of the reality of oppression, injustice, inhumanity and not just callousness but utter disregard for the adivasis, the lesser human beings. and decides to fight it from within the system.
dadhiyal, presumably the intellectual naxal who sees the injustice, believes it can't be fought from within the system, and so works in his own way to deal it, or so he thinks...allowing for the possibility of bhaskar's idealism prevailing.

dushane vakil (amrish puri) the veteran, an adivasi who has made it in life. a succesful, prosecution lawyer who refuses to be caught in moral dilemmas. he is someone who has seen and even experienced injustice but is in a situation now when he can chose to take an elevated stance of an objective puveyor of law, who only sees the visible truth. who refuses to allow himself to be swayed by reality. the truth made available to him is good enough for him to continue with life.
doctor patil, who is a pawn to himself. in a position of power but not knowing it, allowing himself to play the role situations demand of him, his priority is to mask his mediocrity, in a position of comfort that allows him to demonstrate an ethical and important role in society.

and you have the villains...the SP, the MLA, the contractor who are at the top of all this. the deviants, the powerful, almost megalomaniac who possibly don't even see anything wrong in the way things are, for they are the purveyors of injustice. if they see, they won't function.

i couldn't help but remember how deeply affected i was by the movie the first time i saw it. how disturbed i felt, how angry, scared, frustrated. angry enough to swear i would not let myself be quiet in the face of injustice, scared not knowing what would give me the strength to fight it, frustrated by insulation of our existence and the invisibility of injustice.

that was long long ago...life moved on...unknown to myself i was ascending the ladder of insulation, unfortunately i was not seeing it. insulation creeps up slowly and engulfs you, until you became part of a milieu that is a cross between the dushane vakils and doctor patils...considering how complex this globalized world is, you don't even know if you are a victim or a perpetrator or otherwise...feel like i have drawn a full circle and just come back to where i was 17 years back.

i remember part of govind nihalani's 'Dev' made around 17 years after aakrosh. and he deals with the same thought. he is still reminding us in his own way, in his own language! such a frigging waste!

gulzar's

ik baar waqt se, lamha gira kahin
wahan dastan mili, lamha kahin nahi
dekha tho yahin hai, dhoonda tho nahi hai,
pal ye bhi jaane wala hai...
- Golmaal (Kishoreda)

ek hi khwab kain baar dekha hai maine,
tune saadi mein, uras lee hai, meri chaabiyan, gharki!
...
taash ke patton pe, ladti hai kabhi kabhi khel mein, mujhse.
aur kabhi ladti bhi hai, aise ke bas, khel rahi hai...mujhse!
- Kinara (Bhupinder, Hema Malini)

impossiblity of personalities...

have been having generous doses of introspection the past few weeks!

whenever we go through a challenging circumstance and we have to make choices, I presume it is natural for people to score deeper into themselves and try and find the core personality we are. emotional, weak, rational, strong, non-believer, gullible, spontaneous, self-righteous, conformist, rebellious...

and then we want to make a choice based on our conclusion as applied to the present situation. to do this we try to predict what would happen when we make either choice. then we decide if this will make us feel good or not. will it make the other stakeholders in the situation feel good or not. and then how much do we care for the effect on the other stakeholders and how much for our own...all driven by logic and an assumption about the predictability of our nature!

and how do we determine this predictable core personality of ours? we have no choice but to go back to our experiences and incidents from our past. they help us define our personality to us. we try to make a judgement about ourselves and hence determine what we should do.

am beginning to really wonder if this is correct. our instincts are over time layered and cemented by experiences, emotions, ideas, beliefs and we go through this continuous process of what we think is change. but i think this is not change, i think this might just be the insulation of our instincts and hence a blurring and over time possibly disappearance of our core image.

but even here, there is this assumption that there was a core unique personality that was ours in the first place. and then there is this debate on whether there is such a thing as an innate personality unique to each individual.

i have gone through numerous phases of a changing external personality. i have to talk to different close friends and each of them exposes a different aspect of my perceived personality. it has been heartening to see the consistency in most of these perceptions of different people (who don't even know each other, so their individual opinions would not have influenced each others'). this consistency strengthens the belief that there is a certain 'me' that they know and hence i do too!! but then there are inconsistencies too, and some real glaring ones. so do we choose to ignore those? most likely we do...we are sure we have a 'real, unshakeable, personality' of our own and it is quite scary to think otherwise, so we just rationalize these inconsistencies and move on...

i am beginning to believe that this self-image is defined only by our interactions with others, hence their reactions to us and over time this fortifies itself. over time this becomes habit and we keep behaving this way with new people and their reactions, if favourable, strengthen this behaviour...if it creates conflict we usually are repelled, and so we go into this zone of comfort and interact more with people who react favourably...

i think we are all agnostics! we just take stances based on earlier stances that made a relatively less delible mark on our lives and our behaviours...and of course if something is immensely favourable or drastically unfavourable at a given point in time, we are either tempted or we acquiesce...and we might take a stance contrary to our "defined" personality...but just that once...not to say that we change...next time something similar happens it is equally likely that we may take either stance...

so if there is a really challenging circumstance what do we do? succumb to habit of "personality"...or succumb to temptation of comfort or that of our egos...suffering through it and trying to identify our instinctive behaviour is too long a haul...and too bloody painful!