Meine Gedankenmuster

Moved

Moved to http://www.semanticoverload.com

Posted at 8/17/2007 11:35:00 AM 0 comments links to this post | |

M.K. Gandhi, Nobel Peace Prize and a little bit of history

This year's nobel peace prize was awarded to IAEA and Mohamed ElBaradei its General Secretary. Rosa Parks, the pioneer of the american civil rights movement died yesterday.
These two events, unrelated, got me rethinking about a question that had been nagging me for a long time, but had never found the answer to, viz. "Why was Mahatma Gandhi never awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?" When Dalai Lama was awarded the nobel peace prize in 1989, the chairmean of the committee said that it was "in part a tribute to the memory of Mahatma Gandhi". If there was one person you had to name who personified peace and non-violence in the 20th century, it has to be Mahatma Gandhi. Marthin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Albert Luthuli all of them considered Gandhi to be their mentor. He was the greatest apostle of peace. Jesus was the first to preach to non-violence. Gandhi was more christian and christians will ever be.

The question resurfaced again, 'Why was Gandhi not given the nobel peace prize?'. I did some searching, research, digging around and what I came up with surprised me! I am not sure how much of what I say is going to be news to you, but I think its something worth sharing, and so I will.

As a matter of fact Gandhi was nominated for the prize five times, in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947 and, finally, a few days before he was murdered in January 1948. The Nobel Foundation has recently made public some of the details surrounding Gandhi's case for a Peace Nobel.

In 1937, Gandhi was nominated for the first time by "Friends of India" association. The committee advisor was, however, exteremly critical of Gandhi. In his evaluate he said...

"He is undoubtedly a good, noble and ascetic person - a prominent man who is deservedly honoured and loved by the masses of India...(But) sharp turns in his policies, which can hardly be satisfactorily explained by his followers. He is a freedom fighter and a dictator, an idealist and a nationalist. He is frequently a Christ, but then, suddenly, an ordinary politician,"

Gandhi was nominated for the next two years but was denied the award each time. The critics blamed Gandhi for the bouts of violence is his non-violent movement for independance (all they wanted as an excuse anyway). And there have been charges of the British government having put pressure on the Norwegian goverenment. Das, in his book 'Why the Nobel Peace Prize never went to Gandhiji' says "Britain was highly perturbed when it learned that the doughty naked fakir was being considered for the prize. If he did get it, it would have meant severe political repercussions in Britain's colonies." and goes on to say "British government officials silently castigated the European zeal to award the peace prize to Gandhiji and termed their vigorous attempts as an over reaction to Nazism." Although there is no factual evidence to back this claim, it is still plausible.

The next time Gandhi was nominated was in 1947. With the independance of India and Gandhi's pivotal role in it, there was no opposition or criticism to his candidature. However, due to the communal riots, the slaughter and lawlessness thanks to the partition and the movement of indian troops in Kashmir (a move condoned by Gandhi) , he committee may have deemed it inappropriate to award the nobel peace prize to anyone in the subcontinent. Interestingly, The Times reported "Mr. Gandhi told his prayer meeting to-night that, though he had always opposed all warfare, if there was no other way of securing justice from Pakistan and if Pakistan persistently refused to see its proved error and continued to minimise it, the Indian Union Government would have to go to war against it. No one wanted war, but he could never advise anyone to put up with injustice. If all Hindus were annihilated for a just cause he would not mind. If there was war, the Hindus in Pakistan could not be fifth columnists. If their loyalty lay not with Pakistan they should leave it. Similarly Muslims whose loyalty was with Pakistan should not stay in the Indian Union."

The last time he was nominated was in 1948, but Gandhi was assassinated two days before the nominations closed. Nobody had ever been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize posthumously. But according to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation in force at that time, the Nobel Prizes could, under certain circumstances, be awarded posthumously. However, Gandhi did not belong to an organisation, he left no property behind and no will; so the question was 'Who should receive the prize money?' After much deliberation On November 18, 1948, the Norwegian Nobel Committee decided to make no award that year on the grounds that "there was no suitable living candidate".

In my personal opinion, Gandhi was too good for the prize. He never really cared for any accolades anyway. Awarding him the nobel peace prize would devalue his contributions and his impact on humanity. The best we can do is admire him. He will always be beyond our appreciation.

Posted at 10/25/2005 10:51:00 PM 16 comments links to this post | |

Logic - Flawed at best

External Link |

Ravages' post about god and religion (trackbacked to my previous post) has attracted a lot of debate. The one most interesting to me was about logic. It is amusing how engineering, scientists swear by logic like it was the holy grail of truth and knowledge. I used to be one of them, till I read the Robert Persig book 'Zen and the art of motorcycle maintainence'. In that book Phaedrus questions and challenges rationality itself. That got me thinking about logic and its validity. How logical is logic itself?

Fortunately for me, I am a computer science student, and I have the technical background to take a crack at this question. I know, a student of philsophy would be better equipped than I am, but when you are dealing with computational theory the lines get blurred, exteremly blurred. One of the assistant professors in computer science did his bachelors in philosophy and while pursuing his masters, specialized logic and stumbled upon computer science, going on to do a PhD in it. One of the best teachers I have taken a course under.

What is logic? Unfortunately we enounter a stumbling block at the very begining here. There no universally accepted definition for logic. The most general one I could come across was in MSN Encarta. It says "Logic is a science dealing with the principles of valid reasoning and argument. The study of logic is the effort to determine the conditions under which one is justified in passing from given statements, called premises, to a conclusion that is claimed to follow from them." This is a fairly generic definition that includes most, but not all, of what logic is. This also gives me enough ammo to attack it with.

Traditionally, logic is bivariate. That is to say that there can be only two values to a statement, viz., 'true' and 'false'. Logic also says all that is not false is true. It works well when you are dealing with the limited universe as defined by your premises. But the real question is, how valid can this be in reality? Not very. Consider the statement 'It will rain tomorrow', is it true? It is possible, but we cannot say it is true. This is not allowed in traditional logic. A statment can either be true or false, nothing else. How are we to try and understand the world, the natural, the supernatural or the divine with something as limited as this?

Granted, that we can do better than this. We do have multi-valued logic systems. But they fail too. They cant take you very far without stumbling on the rules that they created themselves. To illustrate one such example with bivariate logic, consider the statement 'This statement is false'. Its simply a statement talking about itself. Can we assign a truth value to it? Just try and you will realize that it is not possible. You will run into contradictions either way. How useful is a tool that isnt powerful enough to talk about itself?

One might argue that is indeed the nature of all tools and intelligence. We havent been able to figure out how our own brain works, and logic is an invention of man, how can u expect logic to be able to explain itself? Going by that argument, our quest for Truth is an excercise in futility because the Truth is much bigger and more profound that ourselves, and if we arent powerful enough to understand how we work, then how can we be expected to understand Truth?

Going back to the definition, logic as a system can be employed only under the existance of premises, i.e., statements that are assumed to be true. In mathematics, they are refered to as axioms. What if we dont have any assumptions? What we seek is the ultimate truth, the truth above and beyond all truth. We wish to gain the knowledge that will explain the universe we live in, starting from nothing, void, no assumptions. Call it what you wish, enlightenment, nirvana, Truth, God. You choice of the name is your choice of the path that you wish to follow to get to the destination. How do you employ logic here? It isnt even valid anymore.

The natural question to ask is, how does logic work so well for science, if it fails miserably trying to explain nature? After all, isnt science a quest for understanding nature? Logic does remarkably well for science and engineering simply because the language and universe of science and engineering is mathematics. It is a severly limited universe, and one invented by man. My math professor said it best when he explained "What are numbers? Numbers are things you do arthmetic with. What is arthmetic? Arthmetic is what you do with numbers." That's how math starts off. Those are its assumptions - existance of numbers and arthmetic.

This makes me question science as a tool to understanding the unverse. It is such an adhoc, weak and approximate means. It isnt even consistent with itself. In fact Godel, one of the most influential logicians of the twentieth century, proved that any self-consistent recursive axiomatic system powerful enough to describe integer arithmetic will allow for "true" propositions about integers that can not be proven from the axioms. So science cannot be right about things simply because the logic system that it relies on is not consistent, is flawed. Science was always a quest for explainations, never the truth anyway.

Posted at 10/21/2005 04:45:00 AM 11 comments links to this post | |

Organized Religion - A Perspective

After writing abt my experience with preachers in the previous post, I kinda figured it would make sense if I wrote about what I think of organized religion. At the risk of pissing people off, I am being candid here.

I use the term 'organized religion' in the same tenor as 'organized crime'. There is simply too much similarity in the way they operate for me to ignore it. Although, there's where the comparision ends. Organized religion has a well defined purpose like organised crime. Organized crime wants to control was much area/domain as possible, and make as much money as it can, dodging authority and/or greasing its' palm. Organized religion wants to spread its dominion in the community to the extend possible, and control as much of the people as possible through the vicious circle of 'sin and repentance', dodging reasoning, rationality and pursuit of true knowledge.

I have clarify at this point that I make a very clear distinction between god and religion. I guess I'll write up a post on god sometime in the future, but for now its about religion.

If I were god (as most of the organized religions define god), then I'd make the world as a perfect place simply because its easier to manage and wonderful place to be, for your kids (i.e. humans) to live and die. Unless, of course, I want to raise the bar, I want a challenge. Since I am god, the all-powerful, nothing could be challenging, so I wouldnt really gain anything by creating an imperfect world and then getting a high out of managing it. Which means that I actually created a perfect world, but imprefection crept into it, thanks to the devil (garden of eden and the serpent). If I am god, and I created eveything, then I must have created devil as well... so devil should be perfect as well, and completely controllable by god, but obviously the devil isnt.. so there is some disconnect there. Even if it wasnt the devil, imperfection still crept in, like entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. But god should be able to set all that right.. after all he is god! At this point logic fails. So what's really going on? I believe that this inherent inconsistency is because of the way religion conceptualizes god. I believe that the god that people know from religion is a far cry from truth, more on that in some future post :)

Lets consider the concept of sin. The 10 commandments. Were we so stupid that it took god to tell us what we need to do for a stable society? Any bloke will tell you that if you are busy murdering others, sleeping with ppl indiscriminately, stealing other people's property etc. it will take no time for the society to disintegrate into anarchy! So to safeguard the interests of the people, some of the smarter folks came up with certain 'rules'.

These 'rules' were written and passed on from generation to generation, and the keepers of the rules ensured that there was peace and stability in the society. At one point the keepers of the rules kinda realized that if everyone is following the rules, then the keepers arent really needed, and so they wont be as important as they'd like to be, after all they were the ones who historically controlled and stablized the community, they were under the threat of obselence! So they needed something else, something that was more powerful than human, an all-seeing, all-powerful entity. God was the ideal candidate, and so they chose god as the ultimate guardian. The best way to control people was to keep them under constant fear, and threat, almost Orwellian. So they went ahead and made all the most basic and natural human instincts a sin, including birth itself (the original sin)! The only way out for the people is thru the keepers themselves... that way they retain control. And that is the ultimate goal of any organized religion, control the society.

Somewhere in the middle of it all, there are people who have received enlightenment, who have genuinely figured out what it takes to lead a righteous and fulfilling life, and are sharing it with other people. When the man, in flesh and blood, perished, his idea lingered, and was the ideal platform for the keepers to comandeer his teachings and manipulate it to their end.

Every religion starts off with the best intensions and teachings, but will invariably degrade into a tool of mass control. It cannot be helped, its in the very nature of nature. Entropy of the world is always increasing....

Posted at 10/18/2005 09:33:00 PM 5 comments links to this post | |

Apparently, I am going to hell :)

The day was pleasent and I had a couple of hours between classes. So did what I usually do, siting on a bench near the fountain opposite the Chemistry Department with a godd book in hand. It had been about 20 minutes and I see two kids, not over 20, walking towards me. I knew there could be one of only two reasons why a couple of strangers would walk to someone minding his own business, and these guys didnt look like the Amway type. I was right.

They walk up to me and ask me if I would be interested in a 'spritual' survey. All my doubts were dispelled at that moment, and I said to myself 'Boys, get ready to sit around for a long time. I have over an hour and half at my disposal I couldnt have asked for better entertainment'. They start with some harmless questions like do you believe in god, are u religious etc. But I knew it was coming, and so I waited. One of them asked me 'Do you believe in Christ?' I knew the gun was fired, and the kids were amatures. This was going to be a fun hour.

Kids: 'Are u a christian?'
Me: 'No'
Kids: 'Have you read the bible?'
Me: 'Yes'
Kids: 'I really respect you for having read the bible, even though you are not christian.'
Me: 'I have read hindu, buddist, and some Baha'i scriptures as well. Have you?'
Kids, slightly confused: 'uhhh... no. We have read the bible'
Kids: 'Do you think Jesus Christ was sent by god?'
Me: 'Yes, just like Moses, Abraham, Mohammad Prophet, Buddha, Bahaulla and many others'
This was definitely not going the way they expected it to. They try a different approach.
Kids: 'Do you think bible is the word of god?'
Me: 'Yes'
Kids: 'What do you think it really means when Jesus says 'I am god' in the bible?'
Me: 'It simply means that what he has to say are words of god, and not his as a human in flesh and blood.'
Kids: 'So you dont think he is god?'
Me: 'Its metaphorical, a lot of bible is. They are not to be taken literally.'

They were stumped at this point. I dont think it had ever occured to them that a lot of what is written in a scripture could be more than that meets the eye, and that it could carry a meaning other than the obvious. I had the luxury of having read Joseph Campbell. This was an uneven match. I guess the kids were even feeling intimidated by my rebuttal, so they decided to go for the juglar and fight it out... it was bad move.

Kids: 'Let us tell you what we believe in. We believe that bible is the word of god, and Jesus Christ is god himself. The only way to heaven is through him, and no one else, no other religion'
I raised my eye brows.
Me: 'Are you telling me that anyone who does follow christianity will go to hell?'
Kids: 'Yes. We believe that christ in the only true god, and all other religions are misguiding'

That was it. This was not something I was going to tolerate. I have no qualms with people preaching their religion or their ideology, but to call other religions a sham, deceit is where I draw the line. No more defensive arguments. I went on the offensive.

Me: 'Why so? What does bible say about it?'
Kids: 'Jesus says that there will be people after him who will claim to be prophets, but we shouldnt be misled by them.'
Me: 'True enough, but does he say anyone and everyone who claims to bring the word of god is fake? Or did he mean that there may be many heretics that one should be wary of?'

They are stumped again. Obviously they havent really tried to understand the bible, I almost feel sorry for them. Ego is a funny thing, it doesnt let you give in even when you know you have lost. They try to keep the fight, feebly so.

Kids: 'Other religions like Islam are in direct conflict with Christianity. One cant be both.'

They fell straight into the trap. This was too easy.

Me: 'Have u read Quoran?'
Kids: 'No'
Me: 'Then how can you denounce someting that u havent read, and how can you claim that it is in direct conflict with christianity?'
The kids then went on about how Mohammad's life was mostly militaristic whereas jesus was all abt peace and preached the path of non violence and so on. This was check and mate.
Me: 'Going by your arguement, the very people who protect you liberty, the american soldiers who are risking their life in Iraq are not following christianity, and so will have to go to hell. Does your religion abandon its own soldiers to damnation?'

They didnt expect this sort of attack, and were in way armed to defend it.

Kids: 'It depends on the situation...'
Me: 'Exactly... why is it so hard to believe that the situation Mohammad lived in, warrented one?'

Kids: 'But look at osama bin laden...'
Me: 'Look at the spanish inquisition'

It was game over. They knew it.
Kids: 'I guess we dissagree on this one. Let us just tell you what we think. It is no way to say that you are wrong'
Me: 'I think you have already told me what you think. Is there anything more?'
They kids said something more abt christianity and jesus being god and stuff, thanked me for their time and left.


There was also an argument about christianity being the sole truth, and I was arguing abt equality of religions and incompleteness of each of them in isolation and stuff, but I dont remember where they fit in the excerpt above.

I cant help but feel sorry for the kids. Illusion of enlightenment in their ignorance.

Posted at 10/16/2005 11:05:00 AM 5 comments links to this post | |

Stereotypes and Prejudices

It was a semi-religious gathering. I found myself there when they said it was free food (trust me, the food was really good! One of the best I home cooked food I have had here). It was at the home of one of the members of the community. The crowd was a really pleasing and intellectual one. I will definitely go to their next gathering, and not for the food, but for the company. It is really inspiring to be in the company of them. Anywayz, coming back to what I was trying to say, I saw a kid there. He was probably 14 years old or so, an african american. From the way he spoke it was obvious that he wasnt from a financially sound family. I spoke to him for a while and I found myself forming a stereotyped opinion about him, and wondering what he was doing here. Quickly I questioned myself as to what makes me qualified to be here. There is nothing special about me. Sure I have been luckier than him to have had a good education, but that's just circumstance. Nothing inherent about me that qualifies me. It felt really good to see the way the host and rest of the group treated him, spent time with him, listened to him and tried their best to make him feel at home. They were so much more accepting and welcoming than I was.
It was then that I realized how deep rooted prejudices are, and how much of an effort it is to get it out of yourself. I used to consider myself liberal and broad minded. I find myself questioning that right now. I wonder how long a journey I have to travel before I can clese myself completely.
It is easy to blame my upbringing and my experiences, and justify my instincts, but I cant lie to myself! I know its wrong, and I have to correct it. I have read so much about equality, diversity and embracing it, I thought I had figured it all out... but now I realize how far away I am from truely imbibing it.
The journey continues, the quest is on...

Posted at 10/12/2005 11:46:00 PM 0 comments links to this post | |

Turning on word verification

Spambots are having their way with my blog comments section. I received atleast 4 spam comments on my blog posts. I am turning on word verification on the blogger comments. I know it is annoying for people who want to leave me a comment, I am sorry for the inconvenience, but I have no other choice.

Thanks for understanding.

Posted at 10/09/2005 03:36:00 PM 0 comments links to this post | |

Caldwell - Kolache capital of texas

Everytime I drove from College Station to Austin, I drove through Caldwell. The drive through Caldwell city as seen on TX-21 isnt anything remarkable at all. Just another small town in the vast expanse of Texas. Each time, there was on road sign that caught my eye. It was a spartan brown raod sign with white letters on it. It simply said "CZECH MUSEUM <-".

"Czech Museum, and here?", I thought to myself each time, and told muyself that I have to see it sometime. That sometime took over 3 months to arrive. It finally did yesterday. It was mostly thanks to a good friend of mine who was so thoroughly bored with College Station that she was desperate for a change and not knowing what to do about it, she called me. If anything has to do with getting out of college station, I am always interested. In my infinite wisdom , I sugessted Caldwell, and she agreed.

Caldwell is just 25 miles from college station, so we set off late at about 1:00 in the afternoon. I saw the raod sign that said "Czech Museum" and promptly turned left. I was entered the interior of caldwell, and the sight it offered had me surprised, amused and pleasently so. Unlike College Station or many other towns in the state, this town had a personality. The business district (historical) looked like it was all frozen in time, different buildings at different periods. On every street, one saw architectures typical to the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and present day. Every building has a distinct style and unique taste. Almost like each one of them had a story to tell. They were only waiting to be asked. The 'arrested development' in time, the rustic set up, the laid back attitude of the people all gives the town a personailty that one cant help but admire. One gets a feeling that the place is welcoming you with a whole hearted smile.

After about 20 minutes of fruitless search for the museum, we stopped at an antique store for directions. Nice lady at the store directed us to the civic (and visitors) center. The civic center had a small room full of czech artifacts from the beginging of czech settlers' arrival to texas. The czechs first settled in texas in 1840s and developed into sucessful agricultural communities. The artifacts suggested that musical and theatrical performances played a central role in the culture, which was kept alive through folk songs from their homeland.

Caldwell hosts the annual Kolache festival. Kolache is a czech pastory made of bread, meat and fruits. Coldwell is famous for it and is called the 'Kolache Capital of Texas'.

At the civic center we discovered that muesum is open only if a prior appointment has been setup. So, we set one up at the spot and were there in half an hour. The museum turned out to be a house that was set up in the traditional style of the late 19th century with period furniture and artifacts that reflected the czech culture of that time. At the museum we were greeted by Maria, an old lady who takes care of the place. She is a second generation czech born and raised in Caldwell. The place hosted maniquines with traditional dress worn by the czech community during the late 19th century. It was hard to believe that it was all hand done with croquet. Some of the designs on the dresses, gowns and quilts were too exqusite for it to have been done single handed. The glassware and porcelin on display had amazing decorations on them. The cut glass shone like diamond in the incandescent light.

The place had a lot of stuff from imported from Czech Republic to keep it looking authentic and genuine. I couldnt help but admire the effort that the curator was taking in trying to keep the heritage that they hold so dear to them. There were a lot of reproductions based on old sketches, designs and paintings of that period. The place was renovated with the style and colors as they would have been in a czech home in the 1860s.

We spent over 2 hours in an area no bigger than 750 sq.ft. Maria had a lot to talk about. She virtually traced the history from 1830s to present day with amazing details from her own life and that of her parents and children. She talked of the world war and how it affected her. She talked of life as she led during her younger days, before there was running water, before there was electricity availabel in caldwell. It is one thing to see inanimate objects on display, and something unreal to hear a first person account of what they meant to the people back then, to construct a mental picture of life during those times as described by someone who has lived that life and has come to treasure it.

There were suveniors for sale, all of them were imported from Czech Republic, and so too expensive for me to afford it. We I told Maria that I wish I could buy one of them, but couldnt afford it because I was a student, she was generous enough to give me a couple of cook books saying "I know how it is to be a student, I couldnt possibly take any money from you. I am just glad that you took the time to come a visit this place". I didnt know what to say. I dropped some money into the donation box as a small thank you for everything.

We bid her goodbye and left for College Station. This is one visit I am not likely to forget in a long time. I will probably go back there again, soon. I am yet to have a Kolache from a restaurant there. My tryst with Caldwell couldnt possibly be over with that still pending :)

Posted at 10/08/2005 10:32:00 PM 0 comments links to this post | |

Weekend before the one that just passed me by

It has been a while since I got out of college station. I needed a break and so decided to visit a friend in Austin. I got there friday evening, and we decided to go for a hike in a state park closeby. Deceived by the decent picture of the place in the website, we decided on Bastrop State Park. Needless to say, it turned out to be a total disaster! The best that we got to see was this....


The trail was nothing more than white sand poured along a beaten path. There was nothing inspiring, serene or contempative about the place or the trail. It was, unfortuneately, one of the most disappointing hikes I have been to. The only saving grace was this snap below (and it isnt much, I admit)









Determined to make the weekend worthwhile we decided to go to the Natural Bridge Caverns near San Antonio. It is supposed to be the largest natural underground cave formation in Texas and growing! Going there, I definitely did not regret. We started late and reached the place only by 2 in the afternoon, bought our tickets (yes, it's not free). I was looking for the natural bridge, but couldnt spot it, atleast I thought I didnt spot it. It was only later that I realized what the 'natural bridge' was... it wasnt much, just this:


Once we entered into the caverns, it was nothing like planet earth as I know it. Some of the limestone formations that I saw left me spellbound, speechless and awestruck. You dont need any speacial fx for sci-fi movies, it was all here. It looked unearthly, and creepy. The toughest part was to photograph them. The exposure for some of the shot was as long as 1"!! Ended up a bunch of blurred exposures thanks to motion. Without tripod, it is humanly immpossible to hold the camera still for 1" :)
I did manage to get a handful of good snaps though.
Here is a photograph that I messed with, to get a decent view of how the chamber really looks.

The chambers are really HUGE. Quite a few of them were supposed to have been inhabited by the native americans. The limestone columns and the staligtites and staligmites are a sight to behold.
I will leave you with a few pictures of the place to give yo an idea of how bizzaire the formations look.....

Posted at 8/14/2005 11:27:00 PM 11 comments links to this post | |

Imperfection

Man is imperfect. This statement is as close to truth as possible, yet volumes have been written about it. Many a men have written treatise on this dedicating their lives to its pursuit. So I cant even begin to pretend that I have figured out even an inch of the true sense in that statement. That, however, does not stop me from poundering about it and seeing how it changes the way we percieve things.

I guess very few would disagree if I said that perfection is boring. A state of perfection excludes any possibility of improvement. And if pursuit for perfection is the driving force for everything in this world, then that leaves nothing else to be desired for. Its like having scaled Mt. Everest. The thrill, the excitment, the sense of accomplishment is all there.. but for how long? What do you do after that? You can go any higher. It cant get any better! So where do you go from here? Down? If any man were to attain perfection, then what would he do next? What choice would he have, but for death?

The essence of life, to me, is the pursuit of perfection that cannot be achieved by definition. If it cannot be achieved, then why bother? I'd say because there is nothing better to do. Man's imperfection is the sole reason for this existance.

What amazes me is that all the beauty we see in this world are due to the imperfections. Be it the Cindy's mole, or Salma Haiak's accent, or monolisa's smile. Man cannot love or appreciate what's perfect, and that again is a part of his imperfection. That simply means that we are imperfect because we like imperfection. Our pursuit of perfection is merely trying to make the imperfection more subtle. The subtler it is, the more beautiful it will look. It is like a striptease, although the ulimate goal is to take all the cloths off, the pleasure is all in how much cloth is left covering the flesh, and how long it takes to have it slip off. I know of countless people who tell me that they like the 'quirks' in their significant other. They find it 'cute' and 'adorable'. They are simply talking abt imperfections that they choose to love.

What we like the most, is what is flawed the best!

Posted at 8/03/2005 11:34:00 PM 2 comments links to this post | |