love, sex & dhoka

well, if you had asked me the moment I walked out of the theater or even while I was watching the movie, I didn’t have any great feeling about it. in fact I was wondering what the heck it was all about. I felt it was a very average, so-so movie.

I am a story guy and the 3 stories were just general stories, nothing to rave about. but we friends came out and all of us initially felt the same way about the movie. we started talking and each of us slowly realized that there was a very disturbing and scary point the movie was making. I remembered an interview of Dibakar when he said the camera was the protagonist in the movie. then when I saw the camera in the 3 stories it is interesting how the role of the camera kept evolving.

in the first story the camera had a child like simplicity in the way. it is a inactive camera used by a good guy, very much in love with the world, especially with this girl and the camera is lovingly watching them, but then suddenly this innocence is marred by a bizarre violent end.

in the second story the (close circuit) camera is a bit diabolical as it is. It is meant to watch people coming, keep a record of the goings on, is used specifically to spy. slowly the human beings start exploring other possibilities of using this static, convenient spy for ‘other’ motives. and this guy is manipulated by the existence of this camera and the pressure of his circumstances to make use of the camera for an utterly reprehensible purpose. Here too the human being has to approach the camera not vice versa.

the 3rd story doesn’t start with any scruples. the camera in this story is a scheming tool right from the beginning. and the human beings are a set of scheming people trying to figure out what they can get using the sting camera that will help them get popularity or money. so even an incomplete sting operation where the actual dark deed is supposedly not captured lends the journalist guy to ridicule throughout his life.

reminds me of Douglas Adams' - Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. it is a hilarious series of books, fantastic and very funny. one comment among many other cool ones that Adams makes is that human beings are all the while thinking they are conducting experiments on rats. actually it is the rats who are experimenting with human beings. they keep doing stuff that leads humans to think in a different way and then have a ball watching how confused human beings become J

technology slowly but surely is manipulating people into becoming different kinds of villains. and i think because it gives so many avenues for villainy, more of us are doing things we would consider unethical or even wrong. but then at the same time, technology also enriches our life so much and makes it more fulfilling, it is difficult to do much but only constantly make ourselves aware of where we stand in the overall scheme of things.

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!