Changed Frames: Changing Minds

"Change is the only thing that does not change."

After a long time I am setting myself to post a blog. I thought up of this topic.

In any period of time, we all change ourselves to some extent. We also experience changes in our immediate environment. Old things fade away, and new things take their place. But what we are not ready for is a corresponding change of mind.

This change of mind is the most difficult, since it is the only thing we can fully control. Therefore, old thought processes keep lingering in our minds and refuse to go away. Our mind becomes a refuge to escape the changed environment. In accordance with Newton's first law, every change meets with resistance. It is up to us to change our minds, or be in conflict with time.

Everything - everything in the known realm - is subject to change. Take for example astronomy. The ancients believed in a static earth at the centre of the universe. With the passage of time and scientific advances, we now know that we live in a dynamic and ever-changing universe with the earth in an unimportant corner. We now know better than to claim as privileged beings.

If we accept this change, we will be at ease. But if we think that things can remain as before, we are deluding ourselves. It is better for us to accept this change. Change is always for good in a sense - as it shakes us out of complacency and keeps us on our toes. We need to recognize the dynamics of change.

Changing our minds is difficult; but is worth trying.

The better half

For some days, I have been reading articles in the newspaper regarding the respective roles of the husband and the wife in the family. Although commenting on this is beyond my scope, still I will make an attempt to put forth my opinion on this.

The first and the foremost is that both husband and wife are equal shareholders in the well-being of the family. Both have equal responsibilities and both have equal right of their fruit. It is in the best interests of the family that neither of them is slighted or left out of their due equal share of running the family. If one spouse begins to assume the powers and load the responsibilities on the other spouse, there will be chaos in place of the family order.

The second is regarding what is called the "division of labour". This was needed when man was largely clustered into hunter-gatherer societies and had to survive on a daily basis. But in today's modern technological milieu, the professions are no longer gender dependent and are interchangeable. But human biology is independent of technological progress. Hence today's division of family responsibilities are still needed and the other spouse (whose professional advancement does not have biological limitations) must take an equal, if not greater share in the family welfare to restore parity.

This is for the individuals, the couples, the families, the societies and the nations concerned to decide. But any decision taken must be in consonance with the basic principles of human dignity and human rights. Any line of thought in dissonance is bound to invite ridicule and condemnation. Thus we must strive to solve these problems by confronting them.

Is the growth of children dependent on one particular parent, or is it dependent on both parents, or is it independent of the gender of the parent? Child psychologists must answer this question in a convincing manner because any answer of theirs will be treated as gospel and be used to promote a certain system of family values. I myself do not know the answer to this question.

All this is food for thought for answering questions that concern societal culture and human dignity.

Promoting non-issues

A little while ago, I was discussing with one of my friends regarding the sequence of incidents when the Shiv Sena and its allies in Maharashtra sought a ban on actor Shah Rukh Khan's movie "My Name Is Khan" over some remarks by the latter on India-Pakistan relations. My strong feeling is that the whole thing was stage-managed to promote the film. This brings me to the present spectre of promoting non-issues.

Around the same time, there was this issue of Chetan Bhagat demanding due credits for his book in the film "3 Idiots". His main grouse was that parts of the film were taken ditto from incidents in his book. If some law had been violated, he could have approached a court of law without raising a hue and cry. Again, I strongly feel that this issue was hyped up so that his book could ride piggyback on the success of the film. 

What are the standard tactics to promote non-entities? Get them into the thick of a controversy. Generate a debate with sparks flying all around. If possible, inflict damage to the the physical and the mental. This way, a general curiosity will be raised in the public mind. The concerned book or film or media element will pick up in popularity and sales. The owners of the media element will laugh all the way to the bank.

This is just one of the ways of promoting non-issues. There are a number of other ways to do it also. Most of the controversies that do not concern the general publics' welfare and are sleazy by nature are also artificially created and stage-managed. 

The sad part of the whole story is that We, the Gullible, repeatedly fall prey to these tactics. We don't even seem to think what might be the motives of the concerned parties and who might be reaping the benefits of this controversy. For us, all of this is entertainment value. We are happy as long as our base nature is being satisfied. There is no question of us thinking a little over the matter and asking ourselves whether all of this is really necessary.

But, in attending to these non-issues, we seldom bother about the issues that are really confronting us and need immediate attention. We are far from being a perfect society or nation. Pressing problems need prior attention; deep-seated wounds need drastic measures. We need to work hard on all of these, instead of deriving entertainment value from these and other kinds of non-issues.

Self-Control

Probably this is one area which we seek to address during our lifetimes, but we fail to. Often, we end up doing things that we don't want to. There are times when we lose control over ourselves.

Control is all about power. The truth is, some entity must have control on our minds. Either it is ourselves, or, if we relinquish our responsibilities, it will be others, over whom we have no [or less] choice. If we don't have self-control, we will end up being like one of those dolls in the puppet plays.

We gain control over ourselves by asserting the functionality of our minds. This way, we have a clear idea of what our mind intends to do. Then, we can clearly define our thoughts and actions. Once this is done, our persona assumes a clear boundary within which we can function independently without interference from external sources.

But why is this so important? This is because most of us have a tendency to listen to others and act on the basis of thoughts that are not one's own. For instance, we often choose to study a particular course based on the trends in our peer group. Thus we lose an opportunity of independent decision-making.

There are times, when we have no control over what we are doing. We get angry, we do things thoughtlessly. As long as they are harmless, there is no problem. But once it crosses the line, trouble is awaited.

Thus, we must have self-control. Think and act.

Ignorance is bliss - or is it?

This is a rather famous quote that I have heard very often. The last time I encountered this was while solving a crossword. Since then, it has been at the back of my mind, but now I bring it to the fore.

This quote derives its strength from the idea that if people don't have access to some information, they are better off. That is, without the burden of some unnecessary information that will disturb the still waters of the pool, they will be at peace. Thus, it is decided to withhold information.

But withholding of information leads to a loss of power. The person who does not have access to this information has to take decisions without the knowledge of its existence, which has potential ramifications. It may result in an erroneous decision being taken, or the decider may regret taking the decision after coming to know of the existence of the withheld information.

In some situations, it is needed to withhold some information. This may be when the use of the information is unnecessary to the target subject, or when it simply creates an unnecessary burden on the receipient. For instance, citizenry need not be informed of every strategy of the intelligence agencies.

But, in other situations, timely dissipation of information is needed. Lack of dissemination may result in potential disasters. Lack of information also results in the grinding of the rumour mills.

On a more mundane scale, the necessity of secrecy must be avoided as much as possible. Sometimes it may be unavoidable, but it need not be that way always.

Is ignorance bliss? Not necessarily.

Instant Gratification

So much on my not posting anything for quite a bit of time. I was stuck up in some processes. One of the hallmarks of these processes is the desire for what is known as "Instant Gratification".

This is a very prevalent part of human nature. We all do activities; and we also seek immediate results. It is very common to hear people at weddings talk about the names to be given to the babies-yet-to-be-born. Physically imbalanced people also tend to eat more without thinking. So do people take very hasty and rash decisions only to repent later. The truth is, that processes take their own time to produce results. Also the results are not necessarily in the form which we desire. But this aspect of human nature is with us, and is here to stay.

Why are we like this? Are we impatient by nature? Or is it a part of our evolutionary ancestry, where the animal in us seeks to get the maximum out of the present before being overcome by the forces of nature? Does adrenaline have a role to play in this? Can't we be a little patient? Can't we work out worst-case scenarios before proceeding to act? Can't we, to put it short, think before we act?

I do not know. Everyone I know has this trait to some extent. In every action that we perform, there is a part of us where we seek immediate results. So we are so immersed in doing, that we seldom think of the consequences of our actions. If only we think a little, we can entirely dispense with instant gratification.

Let us work using our heads, instead of our heart and hormones.

What do we live for?

Probably, all of us strive to answer this question as we carry on with our lives. Do we live for food, clothing and shelter? These are basic necessities; one cannot live without them, but surely every living entity aspires for them. Then do we live for money? Money is an abstract concept. We will aspire for money only if we derive some meaning out of it. Then do we live for being respected, loved or feared? It comes a little closer; after all, that is what excess money is put use to. But what is the final goal?

The final goal can be only one thing – to connect ourselves with what truly belongs to us – our eternal and immutable self. But seldom do we realize that. Indeed, all of us are on that path, having traversed to some extent. Some are standing at the beginning, some midway, whereas some are near the end. No one has truly achieved the final goal in his or her lifetime.

Some aspire for physical prowess; some for beauty; some for knowledge; some for appreciation; some for companionship; and some seek answers to their unanswered questions. Everybody is on this path. No one can deny the fact that he aspires for something that he does not have. The mind is always flickering like a candle flame; it can never be completely satisfied, nor can it be completely immobilised.

All of us, indeed, must have thought over this question in their lifetimes. But seldom do we give any thought to it, because we do not have the time, and if we do, then we do not have the patience to attend to this query.

There is no fixed answer as to how we must go about answering this question. Indeed, the existence of so many religions and philosophies in this world testifies to the fact that the same destination can have different paths. The same Mankind which talks of life after death also talks of nullity and void. This is not a contradiction; they are only different ways to look at the entirety.

But what must we strive for during our lifetime? I have a few ideas. [They are by no means universal, but I believe in them.] Practice the golden rule. Always strive for knowledge and intellect. Stand up for your values. The path need not be the same. That way, we can resolve our conflicts and riddles.

To be or not to be, that is the question.