Friday, November 12, 2010

Theory Of Relativity - III

The first part contained the relative use of Science, while the second part concentrated on the excessive use of the ‘relative’. But both the parts have one thing common—apart from the main theme of relativity—and that is the medium of expression, the language.

When the language is so adept at explaining behaviours—scientific and human—how can it remain elusive to the effect of relativity?
Hence in the third part—the last one—I would like to discuss certain aspects that are again obviously known to all. Still I take it up as cognizance of the fact that any discussion on relativity would be incomplete without acknowledging—which we fail to do, failing to recognize its importance, as is with all things that are obvious—the medium that allows us to express our relative views on relativity encompassing disparate domains. Yes, you have guessed correctly—the English language. In fact it is an ode to Queen’s language—a medium is needed to express the findings—realisations as well—the lack of which would erroneously manifest the non-existence of any finding(s).

Though the language and its usage is resplendent with innumerable examples to represent the cause, I shall consider only some of them—frankly speaking I do not have the true estimate of number of such representatives, given the infinite ocean of the language in which we are fortunate to sail. Furthermore it is dependent upon the perception of the person concerned, so permutations and combinations totaling to give the exact number too, would be anything, but finite!

Thus Theory of Relativity decides a specific action to manifest resistance, rigidity, conviction or selfishness.
        An act resulting out of sheer conviction of one person might be termed as resistance or selfishness by others—depending upon their perception of the matter. At the same time a person might effectively be resistant to something or might be acting out of sheer selfishness—but is of the perception that by doing so his/her conviction is being followed.

The words are relative in the sense that they are directly dependent upon the situation at hand—as also on the perception of the people involved in it. Thus, different people, under different conditions, might ‘label’ a similar sort of action ‘differently’ for different perceptions. Just like my penchant for writing—which is my passion, backed by my conviction that I need to share my views—might be termed as madness, by others!

Furthermore, accuracy is referred to as ‘frighteningly accurate’ and imperfection as perfect as in ‘perfection in imperfection’. And the best one to me is our Independence—which is actually In dependence as I have mentioned earlier as well…it is an independence from the foreigners but again it is relative ……as now we are in dependence and slave to our vices as well as to that of our politicians’.

Hence the issues that ‘concern’ me might not be worth a thought for others—to them it being too obvious to be important and hence, redundant. I don’t blame them, as it is again a matter of perception and relativity, which it leads to—things important to others might not be so for me. But the things that I have mentioned here are obviously relatively important with their inherent relativity, to merit my time and attention to ultimately gain identity as this piece!

Thus interpretation, based on an individual’s perception is relative. But deliberate misinterpretation is distortion to the extent of manipulation.

Hence it is not always the literal meaning that gets implied. Relative use of words and their interpretation—again a relative action—changes the meaning…some sort of linguistic alchemy in operation…. with human perception being the alchemical agent.

Sushmita Mukherjee,
11th August 2010.

Theory Of Relativity - II

The first part has been dedicated to the ‘relative’ use of Science—as misuse and abuse—as a cause of a neither dormant nor extinct—volcano of a debate, “Science is a boon or a bane”—instead a very much active one.

But as I have mentioned—oops sorry, rather in trying to take a peek into what Einstein had possibly intended with and for, his theory of relativity—relativity has no boundaries. It transcends all and encompasses all—that which comprises our life and the world as a whole.

Science, we all would accept can never be wrong or could never harbour negative intentions for mankind—at least this remains an absolute philosophy. Yet it is again the paradoxical element of life that keeps alive and fans the above-mentioned debate—to keep it on its raging course unabated. Hence the very mankind for whose betterment Science stands for—and whose advancement too is brought forth by mankind—some of the members of that same species is utilizing it for the purpose it never was meant for—harming, again the same, mankind.

Not only in the field of Science, but life in itself, we have ended (yes) up misusing—and that too by an excessive ‘use’ of relativity. If relativity pervades the entire canvas of life, then life too would engulf relativity by getting it ‘used excessively’ by the inhabitants of this earth. And that is what has happened; to lead to the society in which we live today…bad is the excessive use of anything.

In the ‘relative’ society that we live, we do not consider ourselves to be a part of a bigger family—nation as a whole, to subsequently embrace the entire world as our own.

The simplest example is the distortion of the word ‘cooperative society’, due to this relative approach, albeit excessive. Our actions manifest cooperative as, to co-operate, but towards ‘co-ntradictory’ causes—only to satisfy our own desires with no concern whatsoever for that of others’.

This is the reason our country projects a very dirty—literally—picture to the world. The roads are littered with ‘what not’. Even the residential colonies and housing complexes too give them a stiff competition in the race for ‘un-cleanliness’
     People by their behaviour prove that the ‘carpet area’ of their ‘house’ is their own and hence needs to be kept clean. Rest—the common area—is not their responsibility and hence can be littered with…as a consequence the whole area becomes a big waste-bin, but they are not bothered. No sense of belonging for anything or anyone outside their four walls.

While we were in Bihar people use to prefer Bengalis for tenants—I too being a Bengali took pride in this fact—stating Bengalis keep the house clean. But having shifted to Kolkata, my pride turned to shame—as I have unravelled one of the main reasons behind the cleanliness that they maintained—they throw the unwanted items out of their houses on the roads, in the campus…. whichever turns out to be at fault, by being adjacent to their house! They do not even labour to get up and throw the waste in the bin, when a huge expanse of a bin is easily available to them—at a ‘window’s throw’ that is at a ‘stone’s throw’! Naturally the house would remain clean and only clean.

This I do not state to demean the place where I live. In fact the same story is prevalent all over the country, and hence the cumulative image. I have just stated my findings—one of relative cleanliness. If only we could accept the simple fact that each and every part of our nation is our own—though I know with blatant show of extremism in regional feelings, it is difficult to inculcate and maintain; and about this I have talked of in my blog: “Empowered State and Belitted Nation”—roads, forests…everything, then India too with its rich natural resources—though fast depleting—would look clean like other countries. Very often the first impression turns out be the last impression.
Poverty is cited as one of the main reasons for the lack of cleanliness. But this too is a relative approach—adopted only to avoid responsibility and evade accountability—in totality.
     Needy people do not come and litter the surroundings of our abode with half-eaten packets of biscuits, wafers, etc. Rather they act as scavengers—picking up things as useful, which we consider waste. So all blame cannot be levied on them—an already deprived class of our society—for the mess, the rest of the society plays a major part in creating.

It needs to be humbly accepted that it is our self-serving, extreme use of relativity that has primarily led to this negative outcome—instead of blaming the rest and the sundry; we need to reflect on how we are contributing to the menace.
        If we could cleanse ourselves from within, to bond with our surroundings as our very own, only then we can cleanse the image of our nation—which we have converted into a literal, absolute and not relative, waste bin. 

Sushmita Mukherjee,
 August 9, 2010  

Theory Of Relativity - I

Relativity of relativity makes it a diverse field. Manifestation of relativity in all walks of life is quite apparent. Hence a specific domain for relativity becomes difficult to assign. At least this is a fact—absolute—in this relative world that we all cohabit! And with the confidence in this ‘absolute-ness’, I have dared to title the current ‘piece of thought’.

The original theory, of this name, by the genius of Albert Einstein I am not going to delve in and dwell upon—for the simple reason that I am not at all qualified for the job. But yes, his theory has given me the courage to look beyond the realms of Physics and Chemistry and realise the omnipresence of relativity. My realization of the said omnipresence is the product of my experiences in life and their retroanalyses. All theories have physical significance—events from our day-to-day life inspiring their inception. And when I decided to go ahead and translate my thoughts in this regard little did I know I would get validation from Einstein himself, through his analogies! No, no, not my theory but my application of the original by extrapolation to life, as is evident from the following anecdote: Albert Einstein was often asked to explain the general theory of relativity. "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour," he once declared. "Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. That's relativity!"

All theories—generalizations—are based on the execution of the three steps: experiment, observation and inference—in the order of their mention. When an experiment yields an unprecedented—in its unexpectedness—result for the first time, it is termed a fluke; recurrence for the second time elevates it to the status of coincidence, which is maintained over a specific statistical value. But when the frequency of its occurrence becomes too frequent it necessitates a promotion to generalization! This I have realized during the course of my training as student and teacher of Organic Chemistry, which has forced me to generalize that, “Frequent Occurrences of Coincidences Leads to Generalization”.

This holds true in life as well, rendering this thought absolute. And the beauty and efficacy of science—with its wonderful theories—increase manifold if they are assimilated and integrated, and ultimately incorporated, in life. Only then they could be of use, in the absolute sense, to mankind—the primary reason for their coming into being.

But as I have stated, life as a whole is masked in relativity—in fact absolute relativity. Our life is an outcome of the way we react to our surrounding—people, environment, issues, incidents…..And the way we react depends upon how we relate to these parameters. Relating with people around us in a specific manner either enriches or blemishes, our life with relationships—healthy or unhealthy.

And if science could be extrapolated to life then the extrapolation could be in the reverse direction as well.

The way various chemical compounds relate to each other decides how they would specifically ‘inter-act’ with each other, which gets manifested as unique reactions. This has enriched us with an indispensable branch of science—Chemistry.   

Also with advancement in science the problems that earlier either used to go undetected or suffered from lack of solution are joining the list of ‘erstwhile-s’—both in their non-detection as well as solution. This is evidenced in the aftermath of the ensuing technological as well as medical wonders—the latter being an extrapolation of the former at times. No longer a breakthrough in one specific field remains confined to the limited domains of that field. They are being used by various disparate ‘disciplines’ to anoint themselves with the tag, ‘universal’.

But relativity is absolute!
Despite all these we still cannot deny the fact that ‘instead of human-beings being at the mercy of science for betterment of life, it is science that is at the mercy of its human handlers’. The nature of the dividend—positive or negative—it yields would depend upon how the scientific information is used. This fact, we are being blatantly forced to accept by the ‘terror inciting & inflicting groups’, who by their misuse of science actually abuse science and mankind. And it is not dividend that is yielded, but deficit that is incurred—dividend and deficit being the two sides of the ‘coin of relativity’. And this misuse is not restricted to only the terrorists—rather has become all pervasive with respect to its users.

This menace is a ‘by-product’ of the progressive world. But the way it is gaining identity it’s getting elevated to the post of ‘the product’ and not remain a mere ‘by-product’ seems frighteningly imminent. As the world progresses so does the menace—but at a brisker pace—gaining alarming proportions; after all downhill reactions are always faster.

Nothing can be absolute in this world—an absolutely relative place. Not even science. This is a fact. Yet the fact of the matter is the fact that life is a paradox and in this paradoxical life we cannot deny the equally paradoxical absolute—ness of relativity.

Thus my theory—if of any consequence—of relativity is that, “Relativity is absolute and if not absolute, at least relatively absolute”.

Sushmita Mukherjee,
31st July, 2010.