Songs from the school

I have always regarded the school campus to be a special place. But I realize that I have only understood the meaning of the word special in the past few months.  Living inside the school is once in a lifetime experience. It made me realize that I had not heard the chirping of so many birds in my life. It is refreshing to wake up to the cooing of the cuckoos. I soon realized that the cooing did not exactly start in the morning.  One sleepless night, I discovered that the cuckoo conversations took place every thirty minutes from 1:30 am. 

I find the birds in the campus are not averse to human company. One morning as I was walking to the school, I was fortunate enough to be escorted by two woodpeckers. An owl stared right into my eyes till my hand moved towards my camera, one evening. Of course, the campus is home for animals too. Many a times, I interrupt the stroll of a mongoose family. They always express their displeasure at this interruption, by staring at me for a few minutes before disappearing into the bush.

Feeding Looty, during the early days of the year, was also an experience. She was young at that time and was constantly harassed by the crows and cats in the campus. To catch her attention we used to whistle and meow as we walked around the office block. Invariably, Looty jumped off a tree and gave us the “at long last you are here look”.  Before long, the crows noticed that food appeared in Looty’s bowl soon after the meowing and whistling. Many evenings, the tree outside the assembly had enough crows perched on it to make it an ideal location for a Hitchcockian movie.

Let us talk about trees for a moment

Every time I enter the school I am struck by the sight of the trees lining the path to the office.  Sadly, the previous year’s cyclone uprooted many of them. But this has brought to the fore the trees in the background.  One of my favourites stands beyond the cycle stand to the right.  Most times, it looks like just another tree.  But some nights, when its silhouette stands against the moon and Saturn, it forces me to pause a moment and gaze at it.  As I write these words, it seems more spooky than pleasant.  But the sight of a tree with the sky in the background can never be spooky.   In any case, the noise of the vehicles drives away any trace of the spooks. 

A little further, the path gets crowded with plants and trees with beautiful pagoda shaped leaves.  Recently, I realized that these are known as the Indian cork tree.  Its bark is soft and used as a substitute for cork.  This is not the most interesting aspect of the tree though.  The tree has shallow roots running up to 60 metres.  Every metre or so, the roots sprout the tree’s next generation from root nodules.  Using this mechanism, the Indian cork tree ensures it occupies an entire area to itself.  When I looked around I found two such locations in the campus.  The first is on the right side of the path leading from the main gate.  The other one lies beyond the dining hall; besides the path leading to the science block.

I understand very little about trees but this one fact has made me look at them differently.  I can identify the mango and neem trees.  I think the time has come to learn more about trees.

A tree

Like a tree
Growing from a seed
Focusing on self
Turning deaf to the rest
Doing for self and not for other
But letting them benefit

Where the conversation has no beginning

We can talk about the birds and the bees

Not interested

We can talk on what the ant sees

I don’t care to know

We can talk about how the waves form in the sea

I am not interested

We can talk about Bruce Lee

I am not interested, unfortunatelee

We can talk about how the birds fly

Please don’t

We can talk about how rainbows are formed in the sky

Instead, can’t we fight with swords?

We can talk about how babies learn words

Instead, why can’t we remain quiet?

Son, what would you to talk about?

Let us talk about movies dad

Which movie do you like to talk about?

Any kind

Let’s discuss Sholay

No way

Let’s discuss Nayakan

Nayakan?

Yes Nayakan

What is that?

Forget it! Which movie do you want to discuss?

Any Dileep starrer

No way! He is in the jail.

Welcome to central jail

Quiet! How about Fahad Faasil.

No. How about Nivin Pauly?

Ah! Pauly, Premam?

Maybe

And then the conversation began

Rhyme-crime

Another time i felt

The world around me melt

When everyone yelled

Your project should be shelved

I took out a book

I felt a suspicious look

Oh! He is up to it again

Writing rhymes in vain

I wrote some words; once and again

The stuttered flow drove me insane

Word peeping here and there

Through scratches everywhere

I want to write in rhymes

Which clink like falling dimes

For the previous line I have no care

As I search for words found nowhere

Kept trying like that fellow Bruce

Who watched a spider as an excuse

I look at the sky thinking up words

But all I see are the whites of clouds

I should be stopping this nonsense here
But my hands seem to have no fear
For they don't know what they write
Its my mind that fears wrong and right

As Eddie Vedder said "It's evolution baby"

The topic of discussion landed on nature.  A speaker mentioned had objection in the phrase "sensitivity to nature"; the "to nature" part to be specific.  She argued that we are part of nature and hence cannot talk about it in the third person.  The discussion went on to "being one with nature" and thus saving nature from destruction.

Nature talk always triggers the cynic in me. Actually, almost any topic triggers the cynic in me.  The problem with nature talk is that I am not sure what nature means.  Does it only consist of those chirping birds that drops their droppings on the cars parked below? Or should we include the animals that bark and growl at innocent passers-by?  What about the trees and plants?  What about us?  What about the planet that bears us?  What about the solar system, the milky way and the universe?  Does nature encompass them all?  What are we trying to save; that plant there, this animal here, this planet somewhere or that galaxy god-knows-where? Most times we are not even capable of saving our own selves. So how are we expected to save anything else? 

Let us forget the saves and look at the real question. "Are we expected to save any of this at all?"

We are a part of nature. This "we" includes us and our thoughts.  Our greed, lust and disrespect are part of nature too.  If we respect nature, we should respect the thoughts too.  Maybe nature has a reason for our having such thoughts. But why would nature want us to have these thoughts? I asked this question to the past and got a two word response - "clean up". From time to time, nature loves to clean up its worlds. Nature loves simplicity and as a result its cleaning up process is also simple. First it destroys and then it recreates. As a result, from time to time, nature commands "burn down everything but leave those jaunty scavengers, cockroaches, and the ever smiling crocodiles and lizards alone". Next nature settles down on its work table and starts reconstruction. Our own planet has gone through five clean ups in the past. The last one took place sixty six million years ago, when the planet lost nearly 76% of all its species.  A combination of volcanic eruptions and meteor strikes took the dominant species of those days from living beings to barely identifiable fossils and CGI graphics. 

Nature is dynamic and loves to improve on its destruction and construction processes.  At some point during the past billions of years, nature got the idea of automatizing the clean up process.  The idea was to have minimal external influence in the creation and destruction process.  The thought struck nature a few years after the Big Bang. By then nature was happy with the progress of the universe and boredom has started creeping in. This seems to have given birth to the idea of the regular destruction - construction clean up cycles. But soon nature got tired of the effort required to destroy. The construction part was fun but destruction required too many manipulations. "1. Divert this meteor from here to there. 2. Ensure it does not hit this planet. 3. Don't go too close to that gas cloud. 4. Watch out for the black hole. Careful! Careful! Oh no! Gone! Start all over again." It was a tiresome process and sometimes the destruction part of the project got delayed by millions of years. This resulted in the worlds in question getting messier and the destruction becoming nastier. So nature decided to automatize and internalize the process. Many years ago, nature had created life form accidentally and it had created the life forms in its own image and thought. So these forms too loved the process of destruction - construction. Nature focussed on the construction process and let the life forms take care of destruction. 

Its first attempt at clean on Earth took place 444 million years ago and it was a grand success. 86% of the species disappeared forever.  But at that time, it did not use the life forms for destruction.  Nature was testing if life forms can bounce back after a destruction on this scale.  It did and nearly 70 million years later, it was ready for the next test.  It was a prototype for an independent life form based destruction.  At that time most species lived in the oceans.  Plants had recently emerged on land. Their roots released nutrients into the ocean. This triggered algal blooms which sucked oxygen out of the water and in the process, suffocated 76% of the species.

But nature could not depend on plants. They were not destructive enough.  So it continued using natural events like volcanos for clean up.  It was during this period that nature decided to progress to animal forms.  Nature believed that it had reached its pinnacle of creation with dinosaurs.  They were big, they were noisy and they ate everything around them. But the earth was too big and these creatures were too dependent on brute force to cause a large scale destruction. Nature had patiently spent millions of years to create these species but when it reached a dead end, it did not hesitate to send a meteor to the planet In a matter of few years, the dinosaurs were history.  It was anyhow time for a clean up and so nature wiped 76% of the species in the process.

This last exercise had an important learning for nature.  Brute force does not work.  For regular automatized clean up, nature required smartness in its creations.  It had to continue toiling patiently for a few million years before it came up with the ultimate vacuum cleaner - human beings.

Human beings were slow to start and remained peripheral players for a long time.  They killed a few animals for food and cloths.  Hardly the scale nature expected.  Nature had given up and was on the lookout for a comet to be redirected towards the planet, when the tide changed. Humans showed their innate capability to destroy by contributing towards the extinction of a few species, like the mammoth.  They helped wipe out these species using meagre tools made out of rocks, wood and bones.

Nature took heed of this development and decided to enhance the human's ability to destroy. The next clean up had to be done in a few thousand years and humans had to be nudged along in the right direction. By this time, humans had started the practice of worshiping natural elements. They believed this would keep them safe. Nature realized that the humans had to move away from this habit of worshiping natural elements.  The next stage of human brain development started by making humans look at themselves. Natural elements were given human forms and thus the first barrier between humans and the natural elements were raised.  Soon, natural elements were removed completely and only human forms remained.  Thus the era of organized religions began.

Nature ensured humans spread out to different parts of the planet.  These regions had different climates, which in-turn ensured differences in their physical appearances and ways of living.  The places were too far apart for early humans to travel. Thus for many generations, humans around the globe had little interactions with each other and most humans stayed in their familiar territories.  This isolation was a master stroke as it ensured that each region had its own religion.  Many years later, when humans mind had developed enough to move around the planet with ease, these regional flavours of religions came into contact with each other and started clashing to achieve dominance. This created splits and divisions among humans.  They moved away from each other and yet continued to interact with each other.

Around this time, nature introduced sophistication into human brain. This resulted in changes to the human society.  Their houses changes, attires changed, food changed, mode of transport changed, weapons changed and interactions with each other changed.  These changes moved humans away from their surroundings and each other; from their old gods - the natural elements.  To complicate matters, the world had got so crowded that everyone stepped on everybody else's foot to satisfy their ever increasing needs. They fought tooth and nail for every resource available.  At the turn of the 20th century, nature changed gears and a tremendous progress in technology took place. Nature licked its lips; the end and the ensuing new beginning seemed around the corner.

Of course, no story is complete without a villain.  The 21st century has thrown in the villains in the form of the conscientious people trying to save the planet.  They are trying to put sense into humans.  They are trying to lead humans away from the path of destruction.  Has Nature noticed this menace? Is it planning something?  Do the words the placard say "The end is here.  All hail the end"?

Philosophy synonyms with beliefs, credo, faith, convictions, ideology, and many such words

My tryst with philosophy began at the end of my teens. I found a book on philosophy on the loft.  I think it was called "the story of philosophy".  It probably belonged to one of my uncles and even after all these years I am unable to determine which.  I started reading the book with great interest.  In the first chapter, it discussed Plato and Socrates.  Today many decades later, these are the only two words I remember from the book. Nothing else!  I did not reach the end of the Plato-Socrates chapter. Even today I feel the effect of that abrupt end when I struggle to recollect if Plato preceded Socrates or vice versa.  For a long time, I thought Plato was Socrates' student and at some point the belief turned on its head.  Plato drank a bowl of poison and probably said something to his student Socrates is how I remember it now.  Let me check...

Crap! I got the whole thing muddled.  I mixed up Aristotle's and Socrates' death with Socrates' and Plato's.  So Socrates had to drink the poison and he said something to his friend Crito.  All this was known to the world by Plato's dialogue called the Crito.  Plato did not go through poison to meet his death.  Aristotle was Plato's student and was Alexander the Great's tutor.  Incidentally, Socrates' last words are interesting.  He told Crito "Crito, we owe a rooster to Asclepius. Please, don't forget to pay the debt".  Wikipedia explain "Asclepius was the Greek god for curing illness, and it is likely Socrates' last words meant that death is the cure—and freedom, of the soul from the body."  

Enough of this scenic diversion.

My loft came up with another gem and it was called "For the new intellectual" and it was written by the mother of all philosophers (or so I believe) Ayn Rand. A couple of pages into the book, I understood the meaning of the word boredom.  The book seemed to weigh a tonne every time I picked it up.  It was a book of essays and the first one's title was used as the title of the book.  If I remember it right, this was a stand alone essay and the rest were portions from her other books like Atlas Shrugged.  Though I found it terribly uninteresting, I learnt something from the titular essay - communism sucked and capitalism ruled.  Those days communism was considered the arena of the bright and good (some people seem to think so still).  The book repetitively drove in the point that there is nothing fair in lazy bums surviving on a hard working person's effort and money.  It seemed quite a sensible thought and if you don't plan to be lazy there seemed very little point supporting communism.  

I found Ayn Rand's writing repetitive and hence boring.  As far as I could see she hated communism and recommended capitalism.  The essay went on for 40 long pages and only talked about this.  The second problem was the writing style; the essay did not flow along smoothly but stuttered through the 40 pages.  I tried reading bits and pieces of the remaining chapter but soon decided to give up.  Philosophy was not cup of tea or probably my mind was not created to understand physics or metaphysics.

Two books that turned the thinking were the books by Robert Pirsig - "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance"and "Lila".  I prefer to think of Pirsig as a brilliant author than a philosopher.  His books are a pleasure to read and are so easy to understand.  Unfortunately, I don't remember a thing from the two book other than noting down ones thoughts on cards from Lila.  But these books made me think I loved philosophy and that I am an arm chair philosopher.

Life went on and there were no more proofs about my inclination to philosophy but I desperately wanted to be a philosopher.  So I checked the meaning of the word philosophy - the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.  There was no way of my calling self a philosopher with a definition like that.  Neither was I nor will I ever involve self in an academic study of the nature of all those whatevers.  At best, I might break my head trying to understand why all of us do whatever it is that we are doing.  Why do we study?  Why do we work? Why do we marry and have children?  Why do we go to temples?  Why do we go through a lot of hardships to live better than our current living?  We do all this to die and then we have no idea what happens.  The concepts of after life are only good enough to give one a spook.  Was pondering such questions good enough to be considered a philosopher?  I started to believe so.

A few months after I joined work, the office library threw a surprise.  I found Pirsig's second book, "Lila".  The book made a better impression on me than the Zen book.  Many years have passed since my reading this book and I only remember one thought from the book (It is funny that I remember very little from the two books that have had the greatest impact on my life).  Pirsig says that he carries a set of cards wherever he goes.  He uses them to record his thoughts.  According to Pirsig, if we don't record them they would be lost forever.  This thought made a great impression on me and more than a decade later, I started writing a blog.  I did not write down every thought that came into my head.  Instead I started building around thoughts and incidents.  Though not profound enough to attract an audience, these pieces would at least provide a few moments of recollection, nostalgia and joy in my old age, which anyway is knocking at my door.

Post "Lila" nothing happened in my life philosophically.  After a lot of thought, I came to the conclusion that all of us are philosophers.  All of us live by a philosophy and for each us only this philosophy matters.  For some the philosophy hinges on religion, for others on money.  There are those whose philosophy leads them down crooked streets and others whose philosophy leads to painful and miserable salvation.  Hence we are all philosophers as long as we don't open our mouth and expound our (or in many cases other's) philosophy.

Why did I put down that last sentence! I have contradicted myself. Since I am expounding philosophy here, have I just admitted that I am a phony and not a philosopher. If I had not decided to avoid expletives in these write-ups, I would have used one here.  This is good place to use one of those combination expletive, which goes on forever.

I lived with this consolation prize for long.  A few days back I was driving the car and a two wheeler cut into my path.  I could see his guardian angel look at me with pleading eyes and a placard in hands that read "Save my ass please".  I slammed the brakes and cursed him and his futile forefathers.  My feet then moved to the accelerator and I chased the bike to get him and do ...  "Do what?" I asked myself.  I gave up screaming juicy abuses through gritted teeth.  It is then that I realized that we are made up of many people.  The person driving the car hurling abuses at every one who crosses his path was and is very different from the person outside the car.  The son of his parents did not seem the same to his son.  He was different in each situation.  When a difficulty rams him on his face he turns to God. When the difficulty passes he turns agnostic. He is not stuck with one life; he is not stuck with one philosophy. Every situation changes him and his attitude and with this his philosophy changes.  Thank god for that else I will be stuck being that ass behind the steering wheel of my car for life.