Views on Technology, Publishing & Sports
HOME
IDEAS
LINKS
ABOUT US
Global Change

If we need global change, we as a people must first agree on minimal common issues which touch everyone. Can we agree on the purpose of life? Although a very relevant question, it is too subjective for all to agree on. Reframing it- Since everyone sees life differently and likes to be involved in various activities, can we find the minimum number of categories to classify every (desirable) acivitiy. I think we can associate all that we do -or try to- into 3 classes (broad purposes). And if we do, the world is effectively is agreeing on a practical purpose of life. Then global change can be given a direction and technology and resources can be streamlined for that. Stay tuned, it may sound like a lecture, but the questions that arise will explain why the world is a mess.
View Same Differently

Philosophy, Arts & Sciences, and other formal subjects such as Set Theory, Computer Interfaces, Design, Patent/IP Procedures, and good old Chess- give us the ability to view the same entity or process- in a different light- based on context, combinations, conversions, layers of application, generic or partial views, or at times in a relative sense the same thing just feels different or is effectively equivalent to something else.

Such an ability to view the same as different, can be further enhanced by being sensitive to possibilities and not being conditioned by habit.
Every idea has some value..

As we grow up, it is worth recognizing that every ideology, method or tool however miniscule, contradictory, or obsolete- has some value, and vice versa, the best and most popular tools are not apt all the time and have some drawbacks. Coming from India (Mahabharat) you know what I mean...

So any idea or product that I review or consider, we need to look for what is good in it and when it useful, rather than whether it is good or not. Just rating it as so many stars or points is not the only benchmark (and there is value in star ratings too!).
About Simplicity

Bertrand Russell said that it is difficult to explian- things which are very far or those which are very close to us. So at times the simplest of things such as 'what is time' or 'what is a number' are very difficult to explain, although we use them daily. Or as Vishwanthan Anand once said in an interview that "Chess is a simple game... ok there are complications..but.." It sure is easy for him, but the fact is that complexity usually can be seen as a result of simple/abstract terms, steps, or parts. So when I try to explain or explore simple concents- it may sound tedious- because they are often too close to our instincts and natural thought processes.
About Questions

Betrand Russell said the objective of studying is a lot more about the questions that we ask, than actual answers to every problem. In Chess, you learn that there are many approaches, yet your moves depend on the options you are faced with. Capablanca once said that he only looked one move ahead in a game of chess- the right one! Perhaps, he could ask such a question which was apt for the position, that naturally lead to few (or one) options! Summarizing a situation with a proper question, can lead to exploring relevant options and then further questioning, can trim the options. So its about questions, options, and some answers along the way!