Search Results

In the beginning of the 1600's, traveling across continents was quite frequent, it was necessary for the people on-board ships to know their positions on earth. And it turns out from the previous post, sensing the latitude wasn't much of a trouble. On the other hand, the main problems with finding the longitude was the absence of a natural point of reference for its measurement and the difficulty in determining time. Latitude tells us how far north or south of the equator we are located. However, longitude tells us how far east or west we are from?, where? that's the problem. The measurement of longitude is from an arbitrary line from north to south, the prime meridian. Today, that very line runs from the north pole exactly through the Greenwich Observatory and on to the south pole. In addition to it, to measure longitude, it is necessary that we ought to know the exact time. But, in the seventeenth century there where no accurate clocks, leaving the invention of the of the pendulum clock as an anomaly, as they were comparatively accurate. The heavy and cumbersome nature of these clocks, certainly could not have been used on a ship. Nonetheless, the reason behind recognizing the exact time to determine the longitude on a ship was because, when a clock in Greenwich shows six o'clock in the morning, that's when the sunrises in Greenwich. As a result, that part of the Greenwich observatory is in the process of rotating out of the shadow and towards the sunlight. However, behind, in the west, it is still dark for a ship that is just on its trans-Atlantic route. A few hours later the sun will rise higher and reach its maximum point at Greenwich. Whereas, the captain on the ship will observe the sun as it still climbs, and it isn't yet mid-day for him at his location that is, in the west. The earth has to rotate a little more before it reaches to its peak. When two people at both of these locations, observe the sun, they obviously come up with different results. Since, one of them is further west. Now, because of this the solar noon's are different at the two instances. A solar noon is basically, the point of time when the sun has reached its Zenith. This occurs at different times, at different places, that is the reason why we have time zones. Dialing it back to the two instances, when the sun is observed from the two positions they appear at different levels in the sky. If the people on the ship know the time in Greenwich, then they could use it to calculate their position. They could see how high the sun is in the sky, and also how far it is until it reaches its highest point. They know how long this will take, given that they recognize the time in Greenwich, where the sun has so far reached its zenith. As a consequence, they can find the difference to reckon how far west of Greenwich they are located. The "meridian" that goes through the place where Flamsteed worked, is used as the zero point. Now, the calculation of finding your position gets more convenient, the distance from the prime meridian is measured in degrees. Subsequently, a complete rotation around the earth would be 360 degrees, also we know the earth rotates around its axis in twenty four hours, dividing 360 by 24 we arrive at 15. As a result, the earth rotates by fifteen degree every hour. With that said, if the sun reaches its zenith exactly one hour earlier than than in the Atlantic, then it is safe to declare that you're fifteen degrees from the prime meridian at Greenwich. The other problem that remains is determining the time from anywhere at sea. One could probably use a cosmological event to determine time, like a solar eclipse. One could use the eclipse to determine at what day and at what local time, the eclipse could be seen from Greenwich and then pass on the details to the people on-board a ship before they leave for their voyage. When the eclipse occurs the people on-board could take note of the local time at their location, by determining the position of the sun. They'll only need the difference between the local time that they calculate and the previously calculated time when the solar eclipse can be seen from Greenwich, as a consequence they can recognize their position. But, the problem is that solar eclipses aren't as frequent and it isn't a practical solution. And that is when they decided to use the moon as a cosmic clock. That's where Flamsteed got working, as stated in the previous post, about his role of mapping out the positions of the stars to track the motion of the moon with regards to those stars. As a result, the moon is like the clock's hand and the stars are the numbers. And these readings of the positions of stars could be carried out to the people responsible on the ship in a book, which did make the task of navigation through the sea much more convenient in the 17th century.

This post is a continuation of one my previous posts (this one here). One of Isaac Newton's qualities, apart from his difference in viewing the world and impeccable administrative skills, was that he was very ungracious and an egomaniac. And one of the many incidents that exemplify this behavior of his, given by Florian Freistetter, was the feud between Newton and the astronomer John Flamsteed. Flamsteed just wished to perceive the heavens. It was his grail to put together an inventory of the stars that was more comprehensive than anything that had been fabricated before. Unfortunately he did not live to see the publication of his life's work, and one of the people accountable for that was Isaac Newton. Although their relationship started out pretty well, when Newton published his monumental work Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687, which laid the bedrock for natural sciences. He was able to manifest in the book that the same laws apply here on earth as in the heavens and that projectiles such as canon balls follow the same rules as planets, comets and other celestial bodies. However, to express all of these it was necessary for him to get hold of some valuable data and observations. That's where John Flamsteed came into picture. Flamsteed was a man who had spent an enormous amount of his time studying the sky from the Greenwich observatory. The days foremost problem was determining longitudes at sea, and it was Flamteed's responsibility to observe the stars and chart their positions to provide a solution for the problem. Illustrating latitudes was no longer a problem at that time. Latitude is the measurement of how far north or south of the equator we are. It was sufficient enough to observe the sun, as the sun arose to its zenith everyday in the south. Also, people were familiar with the equinoxes, which marked the beginning of spring and autumn respectively. And from an astronomical perspective are the time when the sun is exactly perpendicular to the equator. As a result, it was pretty easy to consider a reference point and calculate the latitude with the help of the sun. But, it wasn't as simple to do the same with regards longitudes, since it was a difficult problem to choose a reference point. (more on longitudes in a future post). Anyways it turns out, the use of time was very essential in calculating the longitudes in the era, as a premise. And it was upon John Flamsteed to determine and to develop a mechanism by which the moon could be used as a cosmic clock that would be visible everywhere, where the moon is the clock's hand and the stars are the numbers showing the time. It was at this time when Flamsteed and Newton started to measure the position of stars and determine the trajectory of the motion of the moon using the laws of gravitation respectively. Between 1694 and 1696, both of them worked together, but their collaboration came to a stand still when Newton moved to the royal mint, and later became the president of the royal society in 1703. But, later he did return to his study of the heavens and also planned to write a new edition of the principia Mathematica, to include a comprehensive mathematical study of the moon's motion. And this was the time when things got a little tricky. Newton needed new observational data for the study of the motion of the moon and he deliberated to get them from Flamsteed. While on the other hand, Flamsteed wanted to publish all of his life's work in his book, Historia Coelestis Britannica. For the stubborn and egoist man that he was, Newton did not give or rather he did not care less about any of Flamsteed's plans. He was only intended in getting the information about the moon and the planets, whereas everything else was redundant for his new edition. He had no interest or sympathy for Flamsteed's ideas or career. He was only interested in completing his own work and demanded that Flamsteed should assume the junior role, doing exactly what he wanted, that is providing the information that Newton needed and not making him wait for it because of some other scientific vows. In what followed, Newton began to persuade Flamsteed which took a turn to threatening. In a letter to Flamsteed, he wrote that the two of them would become famous if Flamsteed would provide the required observations to help him, Flamsteed wasn't convinced, he wrote to an acquaintance that Newton was behaving in a "hasty, artificial, unkind, arrogant" manner, with Newton providing evidence of this arrogance in a further letter to Flamsteed. "I consider this theory to so complex and the theory of gravitation so necessary for its understanding that i am convinced that it can never be perfected by somebody who does not understand the theory of gravitation as well as i, or better than i." On a previous occasion when Flamsteed had provided Newton his observational data, only on the condition that it wouldn't be passed onto others. But obviously, Newton never intended to do so, he sent the information to a colleague, without even mentioning that Flamsteed was the originator. Flamsteed certainly had no intentions of letting Newton dictate when and how he should publish his findings. Newton, on the other hand, was determined not to go without the data. If Flamsteed refused to cooperate , then he had to be forced to do so. Once again, Newton used the influence that he had, thanks to his niece, who had connection with the royal family, as a result he managed to make them order, that Flamsteed's findings should be published as quickly as possible. and of course, in that period Flamsteed had no choice but to listen to the orders. However, Flamsteed did not give in to the pressure and delayed the process. A few years later Newton rose to the post of supervisor for the Greenwich observatory. This was the time when he revealed his true colors, as he was evident in his letters, he accused Flamsteed of treason for not releasing the data. He went to an extent of opening an envelope of Flamsteed's and publishing his incomplete data, Setting up the astronomer shocked to find his life's work was made accessible to the world in such a reckless and shattered manner. Newton along with his fellows messed around with Flamsteed's work, leaving him outraged at this gesture. Flamsteed at the end of it intended to cut all collaborations with the physicist, But Newton wouldn't let him get away, he felt that Flamsteed withheld information and that he had the ultimate power, under which the astronomer was "obliged" to give all the data that he had found. Their conversation went on peaking with insults. Later on when the queen died in 1714, Newton lost his influence at the royal courts. Now, Flamsteed was finally heard by all the people, which gave him a sense of satisfaction. He continued to work on his Catalogue, but five years later in 1719 he died and he was unable to finish his final volume. However, the the final volume was published by his widow and two of his assistants, and in 1725, The Historia Coelestis Britannica was finally published, which has been referred by many astronomers in the following year and it remains of great significance in the field. If only Newton would have left his ego behind and had let Flamsteed get on with his work, he would have lived to see his publications. Above all, even when Newton received the data, he couldn't come up with a cumulative way to explain the lunar theory. He was unable to reach an impasse, which lead to a waste of a lot of resources.

The idea of skepticism is on a verge of extinction in today's conventional system. Most of us are inclined to accept the objective truths without a sense of doubt (considering you're not a flat- earther). The point is that it isn't necessary to accept a fact without prior skepticism. For instance, in mathematics we are often told in conventional schools that to add two rational numbers you need to figure out the lowest common multiple, the rule of sign's is when you multiply a minus and a minus you get a plus, they tell you about the representation of numbers in the decimal system and nothing about how that came into existence or the fact that the sun rises from the east and sets in the west everyday. We're told these things and then its the end of the story, no questioning. The truth however is that you take the lcm to add two rationals for the sake of convenience with regards to measurements, otherwise if we would have just added the numerator and denominator of such numbers we would have absurd quantities, In any case that doesn't disprove or prove the way we add rationals, but the point is that we're are never informed. The other one about the sign rule, it turns out the reason behind that is to satisfy the distributive property of arithmetic. And it also turns out that the sun rises from the east and sets in the west only on two days of the year and on other occasions it just rises from one direction and sets in some other direction. The point is that the conventional system is flawed and that doesn't help generate interest. When a statement, however true it might be, when presented without its background and how it came into existence, makes that statement go in vain. That's where skepticism comes into play, the ability to look behind an objective truth makes that truth even more acceptable. And that ability is what we need to chase, rather than just accepting things without prior investigation.

These are a select few essays, I enjoyed reading. Essays are perhaps the right way of learning how to write, Moreover they're beneficial when it comes to the regard of understanding various things. As a consequence, these are some of the essays that i found to be insightful, ideological and above all scientific. Now, Probably you might or might not have read them, Substantially these are just recommendations. 1) In the beginning - Neil deGrasse Tyson World renowned astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson talks about the very beginning of the universe. He also describes the elegance of Einstein's mass-energy equivalence. This essay is perhaps almost like an anecdote from 'astrophysics for people in a hurry' written by Dr. Tyson himself. His writings definitely serves as a conduit to the universe, and is unarguably worth a read! 2) The world as i see it - Albert Einstein The world as i see it by Albert Einstein (extract from the book 'The world as i see it') is one of the few things that i have been able to apprehend apart from his scientific work. The essay is perhaps an assertion to his liberal opinion on life and its meaning to some degree. Definitely worth a read, considering it has been written by a man who has contributed a lot to the modern world. 3) A pale blue dot - Carl Sagan Sagan's epilogue from his book 'A pale blue dot' is by far the best thing I've ever read. inspired by the picture of the earth from the voyager one mission, this essay gives the reader a different perspective of human actions. It sheds light to the harsh truth of our unspeakable behavior. One on my favorite lines from it is,"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." "In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." 4) The Fourth State of Matter - Jo Ann Beard This one is probably on one of those powerful essays that you can ever read. In a way, it’s like a good horror, a slow build-up, and then your jaw drops to the ground. To summarize the story would be to spoil it, so I recommend that you just dig in and devour this essay during one sitting. It’s a perfect example of “show, don’t tell” writing, where actions of characters are enough to create the right effect. No need for flowery adjectives here. 5) The idea of India - Shashi Tharoor The idea of India is a very necessary essay written by Shashi Tharoor. It is necessary because the way in which Dr. Tharoor narrates the entire hypothesis of a majoritarian rule is very eye opening. The very reality of all of us being minorities. Moreover in today's climate of unrest based on nonsensical reasons, makes this essay's relevance even greater.

My previous post on the very subject of collective unconscious and archetypes, did not elaborate much on Archetypes. Subsequently this post is more on how archetypes play an immense role in understanding ourselves and our instincts. We inherit primitive memories from our ancestors, these memories are accumulated deep within the subconscious mind and the collective unconscious. These memories are composed and structured by archetypes. Archetypes have two main functions, they organize these memories into themes and they transmit them to the conscious mind when an infrequent circumstance comes to light. Archetypes can in many ways be compared to instincts, because when they're activated they influence our actions, archetypes can be behavioral patterns, depictions, reminiscences, symbols, thoughts and characters, with distinctive personality hallmarks. Archetypes build our personalities, they guide our values and they lead the way through the instants or phases of life, if victorious we would think and act in parallel to our ancestors. Jung believed that archetypes are like blueprints for life. Essentially an archetypes job is to use the memories of your ancestor to get you to live like they did. Archetypes also bring meaningful symbols into the conscious mind, we see archetypal images in dreams and fantasies. In a similar sense, various cultures around the world have resemblance in their myths, legends and stories. Jung's thesis in many means drives a connect between instincts and archetypes. As stated by him,"The archetype as an image of instinct is a spiritual goal towards which the whole nature of man strives, it is the sea to which all rivers wend their way, the prize which the hero wrests from the fight with the dragon." 12 Jungian archetypes, The Sage, The truth will set you free. The Innocent, Free to be you and me. The Ruler, Power isn’t everything, it’s the only thing. The Creator, If you can imagine it, it can be done. The Caregiver, Love your neighbor as yourself. The Magician, I make things happen. The Hero, Where there’s a will, there’s a way. The Rebel, Rules are made to be broken. The Lover, You’re the only one. The Jester, You only live once. The Orphan, All men and women are created equal. {I found these motto's from here}

This post is a continuation to of one of my earlier post Jung's individuation process. The past post which i had written on the individuation process was more of a walk-through, Since then I've come to apprehend more regarding the very idea of individuation, although i would consider my understanding of psychology to be somewhere between nominal and substantial, these are just my stances on it. Collective unconscious is something which Jung gave a lot of emphasis towards. As maintained by him, Collective unconscious refers to the idea that a segment of the deepest unconscious mind is genetically inherited and is not shaped by personal experiences. To explain it in a more simple manner, Collective unconscious is basically the existence of deepest of thoughts in ones unconscious mind (The unconscious mind (or the unconscious) consists of the processes in the mind which occur automatically and are not available to introspection and include thought processes, memories, interests and motivations, the unconscious mind can be seen as the source of dreams and automatic thoughts, source), which in no way or means is influenced by ones daily life experiences, rather is influenced by a genetic inheritance. According to Jung and his teachings, the collective unconscious is common to all human beings and is responsible for a number of deep-seated beliefs and instincts. How is all of this associated with Archetype?, Well Archetypes is also a concept coined by Jung. He credited that archetypes were representations of people, behaviors, or personalities. Archetypes, he advocated, were inborn tendencies that play a role in influencing human behavior. The collective unconscious, Jung believed, was where these archetypes exist. He suggested that these representations are inbred, comprehensive, and congenital. Archetypes are unlearned and function to organize how we experience certain things. Its fascinating to see how deep our inheritance can influence our current senses. For Jung, the eventual goal was for an individual to achieve a sense of cohesive self. Now, me being a rookie at this subject, gives me a tough time to understand what Jung means by a cohesive self, probably more research would help me find an answer. On the contrary, there are numerous classifications of archetypes, these Archetypes can be connected to some political aspects as well, which i would like to discuss in a future post. Make sure you join the mailing list!

This should have been one of the first posts on this blog, but it took time for me to unriddle and perceive what i want this blog to be. Initially i identified writing a blog post to be a fairly, rather simple process. I felt as if the material which i have on my mind, would be sufficient to produce some worthy content. But, it hasn't turned out exactly that way. The fact is that, i have come to comprehend, how difficult it can be to put ones thoughts into words. To showcase ones perspective in a precise manner. To such a degree that the reader receives the message you're trying to convey. To such an extent that, you provide a continuity in what you write. Nevertheless, everything or every art for that matter, has its own learning curve. And to be upfront, I've developed an enjoyment towards writing stuff over time, since it's more like discovering what you believe in. And probably can excel from a rookie to a veteran. Anyways, all of that is a macro level talk, backtracking to what i want this blog to be. Originally, i wanted to write more concerning to sports, but I've come to a understanding that it is not something to which i can put much of my thought into. I want this blog to be more of a commodity through which my loyal readers can benefit from. A blog about the most generic things, which usually falls under our ignorance radar. Of course, that would be a challenge to take on, to think of ideas and to exhibit something worthwhile. However, the process of achieving it, simultaneously would be fun, moreover the game of joining words is always fun. And that's pretty much it. Thanks for reading! Make sure you join the mailing list! :)

This post is more of a conclusion to my previous two posts (this one here and here). The term acceptances has its own meaning when used in different contexts, this post is going to be further around and with reference to self-acceptance. From my standpoint, acceptance plays a clinical role in understanding oneself. Occasionally for instance, it just so happens that we take up tasks, which are in some manner not built for us, or rather we aren't built or compatible with it. That very reason may lead to a persons failure at accomplishing the goals of that particular task after numerous attempts. We have all heard the saying,"try, try and try until you succeed." If you tend to apply that very saying to a goal or task that you want to achieve by not analyzing what your core strengths actually are, you will lead yourself into a path of betrayal. The point that I'm trying to make is that, it is important to analyze ones incompatibility for achieving a particular objective, moreover its important to accept those incompatibilities and move on to something else that suits ones inner nature, which would be a wiser thing to do, rather than wasting time, effort and staying in a delusional reality. The power of acceptance in the above context is very vital for a prosperous future of an individual. For a matter of fact, this very power of acceptance is very essential not only at a personal level, but also at a public extent. It may just so happen that a group which looks after the working of various institutions of the society, makes a series of mistakes. Now, mistakes happen, after all we are just humans. What's important here, is that the particular group responsible for the errors are to accept what went wrong. If they just keep living and showcasing a mindset of denial and never accepts the blunders that were done, then it leads the road of growth to a different path, a path which can never amend the faults committed. You see, the power of acceptance is even larger than confidence. You can find a good deal of pseudo-intellectuals who are confident, but they will never accept the fact that the argument they present are flawed. The art of acceptance is surely something one should look forward to and pursue in today's age of immense digitization.

Pseudo-Intellectualism has been on an all time high since, probably the start of the information age. In some ways its sad to see some of the pseudo-intellectuals in positions of power, however apolitical you may be, politics is a matter of public interest and it effects everyone in one way or the other. Anyways, This post is not me putting out facts about pseudo-intellectualism, rather it is about me trying to understand whether i have fallen into its trap. As far as i know (from here), pseudo-intellectual may be used as a general term of abuse for intellectuals one dislikes or disagrees with. Nevertheless, in more careful use a rather clear distinction is drawn, a pseudo-intellectual is someone dishonestly or insincerely using the language, style, or topics of an intellectual, but who lacks the goals, morals, or ability of a “genuine” intellectual. It is someone who acts pretentiously and wishes to win an argument or impress (more like a debater from my previous post), rather than modestly trying to find the truth – a focus on surface and rhetoric over content. These often involve a superficial understanding of a subject and condescension to the audience, as well as possible self-delusion (not being consciously dishonest, but rather sincerely thinking oneself to be behaving as a genuine intellectual despite one's incompetence). Also, receiving higher grades is an out dated method of knowing if a person is an intellectual. So i decided to analyze myself for a week and diagnose if i was one or not, based on the above definition. I decided, i wanted to introspect myself on how i communicated with my peers. Moreover, to see if i conversed about something, of which i did not know anything about. And in one instance, i was fortunate enough that a topic dropped in, of which i had no clue about. And in another instance, my professor talked about George Bernard Shaw, of whom i did not know anything about. And in both instances (even though there where many such instances) i decided to stay silent and not jump into any of the discussion. Because you know what they say, "eloquence is great, but silence is golden." What i just did, is either a prime example of being a pseudo-intellectual or not, depending on the context. Me quoting stuff about being silent is in some ways what a pseudo-intellectual would do. But on the other hand me accepting that i don't know what the idea of the subject in discourse was, is what an intellectual in some ways would do. The other course of action a pseudo-intellectual would resort to is debate, trying to make his/her point. Even though their understanding of the argument is very minimal. On the other hand, an intellectual would resort to the idea of having a dialogue and coming to a common ground of understanding of the situation. (checkout the previous post for more differences). You see, in my opinion if a pseudo-intellectual accepts that he/she is a pseudo-intellectual, then that actually makes them an intellectual. Because it takes some level of intelligence to figure out who you actually are, rather than staying in a delusion, of who you actually aren't. It's great to be an intellectual, its also great not to be one , but its awful to be a pseudo-intellectual.

The term pluralism hold a lot of grit in a country such as India. For that matter, India is by far the most plural as well as unique in terms of existence of states, groups, principles, sources of authority, etc. This plural nature is in some ways the true identity of our nation. In such an ideologically diverse scenario, a dialogue between people is necessary for dissemination. But instead we often pin our hopes on a debate. Now, a dialogue and a debate have their own differences, such as Polarizing or Collaborating Debate is competitive and or oppositional, two or more opposing sides try to prove each other wrong. Dialogue is collaborative, cooperative, multiple sides work toward a shared understanding. Counter or Listen In debate one listens to find flaws, to spot differences, and to counter arguments. In dialogue, one listens to understand, to make meaning and to find common ground. Closed or Open Debate creates a close-minded attitude, a determination to be right. Dialogue creates an open-minded attitude, an openness to being wrong and an openness to change. Defend or Reflect In debate one submits one’s best thinking and defends it against challenge to show that it is right. In dialogue, one submits ones best thinking, expecting that other people’s reflections will help improve it rather than threaten it. Invest or Suspend Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one’s beliefs. Dialogue calls for temporarily suspending of one’s beliefs. Belittle or Respect Debate rebuts contrary positions and may belittle or deprecate other participants. Dialogue respects all the other participants and seeks not to alienate or offend. One or Many Debate assumes a single right answer that somebody already has. Dialogue assumes that many people have pieces of answers and that cooperation can lead to a greater understanding. Winning or Common ground In debate winning is the goal. In dialogue, finding common ground is the goal. Critique or Introspect Debate causes critique of the other position. Dialogue causes introspection on one’s own position. Own or Other Debate defends ones own position as the best solution and excludes other solutions. Dialogue opens the possibility of reaching a better solution than any of the original solutions. Conclusion or Open-end Debate demands a conclusion. Dialogue remains open-ended. Flaws or Strengths In debate one searches for flaws and weaknesses in the other position. In dialogue, one searches for strengths in the other positions. Disapprove or Concern Debate involves a countering of the other position without focusing on feelings or relationship and of the belittles or deprecates the other person. Dialogue involves a real concern for the other person and seeks to not alienate or offend. Overall the point that stands, is that, in a country as plural as ours, dialogue is necessary. Latterly i had read a column called The idea of India. Even though it was written more than a decade ago, i ended up reading it now. And it had a very clear and detailed picture of how all of us, collectively are actually minorities. It had the meaning of how India is a vibrant land of pluralism. CLICK THE IMAGE BELOW TO READ THE IDEA OF INDIA.

Tracy Chapman's 1988 "Talkin' Bout a Revolution" is a self-titled album that protests economic and racial injustice that continues to plague various countries. In today's world of complete chaos and mayhem, there's little but no hope that things can change. But Chapman's song 'Talkin Bout a Revolution' gives us a sense of hope, belief that this world could change. The message that this song spreads has remained relevant for decades and it still holds its relevance. "Don't you know They're talkin' bout a revolution It sounds like a whisper Don't you know They're talkin' about a revolution It sounds like a whisper..." "Poor people gonna rise up And get their share Poor people gonna rise up And take what's theirs Don't you know You better run, run, run... Oh I said you better Run, run, run... Finally the tables are starting to turn Talkin' bout a revolution." “Don’t you know,” implies that we should already know we’re either supporting the revolution or we’re in the way. To sing out about a whisper. To rearrange those armies of salvation. The confidence of guitar and Chapman’s voice: “Poor people gonna rise up/ And take what’s theirs.” The belief that tables turn, that people in power should heed this warning and “run, run, run, run, run…”. The use of a second person (you) to implicate all of us: “Oh I said you better run…” There is a safety in this song for me today, even in the skewed reality of our time.  We must not get totally distracted trying to just survive. Tracy Chapman: “I wrote the song ‘Talkin’Bout A Revolution’ when I was sixteen, I guess I was in my second or my first year of boarding school. I grew up in Cleveland and went to public school there. I received the scolarship to go to boarding school. It was a really difficult transition for me, being in Danbury, Connecticut. I found that people at the school didn’t really have that much interest. I was really angry about that, and that’s where the song ‘Talkin’Bout a Revolution’ came from. Meaning that a lot of them thought that… they didn’t think that people’s lives who…, people who didn’t have money or who were working class, their lives weren’t very significant and they also somehow couldn’t make a change. But I feel that’s where change comes from, that’s where people are in most need... I think it's important, if you are an artist, to use your music to stand up for what you believe in.” CLICK THE IMAGE BELOW TO LISTEN.

Not long ago i ended up clicking into a David Bohm interview. And found a lot of it to be interesting. But, the one thing which i would like to talk about was his interpretation on how thinking and thought differ from each other. In that very interview he says,"Thinking is an active verb, think-ing. It means you are doing something. One thing you are doing is criticizing your thoughts, seeing whether they cohere. And if they don’t, you begin to change them and experiment with others. You get new intuitions, new insights." Through which he exclaims that thought is a completely different aspect of interpretation of human idea. Thought is not that active and Bohm calls it conditioning. In order to explain what he means he takes the example of Pavlov and his dogs. "The dogs would salivate when they saw food. He rang a bell and the dogs associated it with the food, so later, they began to salivate just by the sound of the bell. So, there is an elementary thought here, which was, whenever a bell rings. The first reflex was whenever food is there, salivation occurs. That may have been built in instinctively. The second reaction, which is conditioned, is, whenever the bell rings, salivation must occur." As a result there are these are two steps in a process. The first step is called reflex. Something that is build in, a natural characteristic of humans as well as animals. The second step is conditioning. Something that might not be build in itself, but because of a certain evolution it is still a very basic quality of, again, humans as well as animals. And, according to Bohm, thought is nothing more than a form of reflex and condition. "So, if you say, whenever this happens, I need to do this, whenever X happens, I need to do Y. Now with that, you don’t have to think. Immediately when X happens, you are already doing Y, right? It is a reflex. Now, that is the nature of thought. And one reflex leads to another. You say, whenever I think this, I must conclude that. Whenever I conclude that, I must go to the next step, you see, it may be established by association, or by other ways, like reasoning, where you try to organize it logically, or by similarities – association in time is the simplest, association by similarity, or a connection by logic. But, once it is done, it is all the same, it is a reflex, you see, logic is a reflex." He even calls logic a reflex. Logic in itself is not proof of reality.