N Series

| Sunday, December 15, 2007

~Aditya

Fluid Me
This post is aimed to deal with the question that I was asked by Suchitra one day. The question was more of a series of statements that culminated in the ultimate question. “Every moment we are being subjected to various stimuli. We respond to these stimuli based on our perspectives that have been garnered over a long and extended period. This perspective defines what we are. Now, if we respond to this stimuli based on our perspectives, those stimuli are bound to change our perspectives, albeit to a very small extent. If this is a continuous process, what is the concept of me? Is it what the perspectives imply? If they are, then as they are a continuous process, what am I now?

I would like to use the concept proposed in one of the better books I have read, “Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance”. In the book, the author uses the concept of a train (classical understanding), on a track (Quality) and the leading edge of the train (romantic understanding). As I began trying to talk about the concept of me, it dawned on me that the train analogy could answer the question that Suchitra asked.

For all purposes, before I start, I will state what the three main items in discussion are. Firstly, the tracks represent the concept of “I”. The leading edge of the train, which runs on these tracks, is the concept of “I” that exists at this moment. The engine of the train is the concept of “I” that existed the moment before.

The leading edge is nothing but the application of the environment that surrounds us at this moment and its application to the tracks to understand what the tracks are. Therefore, the leading edge is the present perception of where we are (the current concept of “I” based on what is around us (the environment) and who we actually are (the tracks).

Once the leading edge has been established, the next step is a feedback loop. Here, the leading edge (current concept of “I”) is tested against the engine behind the edge (the previous concept of “I”). When in our perception, the leading edge is better than the engine, we immediately replace the engine with the leading edge; in other words, the current concept of “I” becomes to my perception, the true concept of “I”. In the other case, when the leading edge is inferior to the engine, the leading edge is thrown away and the engine is retained; in other words, the current “I” is thrown away.

The question that comes to mind is “What is the necessity for the engine? Why can I not have just the current concept and nothing else?” The answer to this lies in the question. The engine is something that pushes us forward. It is the current concept of “I” that drives our understanding of the tracks on which we are. It is this engine that drives us to understand what we are the next instant. Without this there would be no understanding, there would be just the tracks, without anyone to go on them.

“I” is fluid,
Depends on you.

| Friday, March 14, 2008

~Suchitra

Concept of 'Dimensionless Me'

This post is more of an augmentation to the concept of 'Fluid Me', rather than a reply as such. Before moving further I would like to clarify the premesis of the question that was asked which provoked that particular post as a response.

In a single phrase, people change. Often, the changes are so astounding that it leaves you in doubt whether you really knew the person at all in the first place (and by the way, what is it to 'know' a person? Make that a TLT) Then, it is but natural that it leaves you wondering...what or who was/is the person. Apply the same thing to yourself, and you wonder who you are, what is the relationship between the person who keeps morphing like plasticine and the substance that actually makes up the plasticine. It was in this context that the question actually came up.

The concept of a 'Dimensionless I' struck me as I was going over some concepts for my Reactor Engineering class. A reactor of a particular configuration, to be used for a specific purpose, will have a few dimensionless constants govering how its numbers should behave; whether the reactor is to be used to get a few millilitres of the product or for large scale operation, the numbers govering its construction will be proportional to the dimensionless constant(s).

To relate to the concept at hand, each of us have this unique identity that is dimensionless. It does not depend on circumstances, place, time, or people. It cannot be masked, hidden or otherwise kept under water. And this dimensionless constant of the 'I' that we are manifests itself in every action, word or thought of ours. I am not sure how I can explain this further, it is more of an emotion that is associated with people, than a tangible thought. I hope you can understand what I mean by what I am trying to say about the undercurrents that people are. This 'I' can be made as large or as small as we want it to be, it can be modified, manipulated or otherwise tweaked with. The changes we see in the person are changes on the I, not changes of the I. The changes don't matter so long as the integrity of the 'I' is not compromised.

_____________________________________________________________________

A word regarding the relevence of this particular line of conversation.

Man is the animal who needs his space, and needs his people as well. There are only two kinds of men (or women - as usual, I'm chauvinistic when it comes to writing men/women!), the first being the men who know, and accept, that at the end of the day, we are all alone, an entity unto ourselves. The second kind are the men who do not accept this fact. However regardless of the acceptance or non acceptance of the fact, all of us want the pleasure we derive out of company, the association with fellow human beings. What I am trying to point out of this ramble is that there is an internal conflict involved here: we want the people, who we know are temporary presences. (Not surprising, for each of us are temporary presences ourselves) The conflict is something that we are living with, and that actually makes things very interesting; the fact that we are able to derive permanent happiness from temporary associations. One of the surprises life throws out unexpectedly, one of the bitterly pleasant ironies of life.

We associate the parameter that measures the so called success of our life, happiness, by our associations with people, among other things. Whether this is justified or not is a different question altogether. But the fact still remains that for most of us, happiness depends on the people in our lives, and problems in our relationships with people leads to unhappiness. I find that a lot of the so called problems in our interactions with people comes up because we are not able to relate to the fact that people change over time. And what's more is we expect people to adjust and accept us when we change. Understanding of the fact that the changes in people are but superficial responses to circumstances, something like a chameleon changing its colour, would go a long way in making our dealings with people more comfortable, and stop making us thinking too much on the lines of why people do the multifarious things that they do. That people are what they are, and can be nothing else, no matter how hard they try, no matter hoe hard they want to try.

I shall define my TLT in a precise form now.

TLT 1.What is it to 'know' a person? Is it the knowledge of their existence, the knowledge of their defining characteristics that makes the changes in them visible and apparent to our eyes, or knowledge of their 'I'? Again, is it their perception of their 'I', or my perception of their perception of their 'I'? And why do we feel the need to get to know people at all?