Fish

Fish
My babies - last of the Mohiccans

Monday, March 13, 2017

My Silence

I am your silence,
who follows you
everywhere;
Even though I may
sound loud
and pestering sometimes;
Embrace me tight.
For I shall hold you 
close to me forever
and protect you
from the silence
of evil.
Listen to my silence.
You will be safe.

Friday, February 17, 2017

Day 1


He woke up at five,
she was all over his mind.
The weekend was here,
it was time to rest
before diving into reading
and his writing started.

She was rolling
under her quilt,
pondering whether
God existed or not.
And, if he really did,
was he needed at all.

And he contemplated
If there would be a response
from an expected source.
What would he say?
How would he deny?
The thought of death,
shadowed across
his mind.
Was it near or
was it far away?
He wanted to live
for her.

She wondered
if sentences were real.
Did they exist or not?
And the question popped
up in her mind;
Do we like something
because its beautiful?
And do we like it
just for ourselves
in a selfish way?

And his mind wandered
to his own flesh and blood.
What would she do after him?
Will she survive independently?
Does she have the courage?
Surely, she will miss him.
But would he even know?
There was no way to tell.
Only time will decide.

And she has a sister,
who needs his help.
He wants to lead her,
out of her quandary.
But it seems a tangled web
that will take some effort
to unwind
and play itself out.

Day rolls on,
night unfolds.
A party.
The longing to be close
was never more needed
than now.
A hug and clasp
under his quilt.
If only she was here?
She said “yes",
“me too”.
They pondered.
And that was all
they could muster.
Even though
minds sought more.
It was time to rest
again.
Until the morrow.
Good Night sweetness!

Monday, January 23, 2017

Calling

Did I hear a knock,
on my front door?
Or was it just the wind
howling, across the floor?
Woke me up too early,
so I go back to sleep;
To wake up again shortly,
to the sound of a beep.
A WhatsApp message,
asking “what do you think of me”.
So I answer,
I don’t want to pass.
Explaining plus and minus,
like in an old math class.
Was I right,
or did I get it wrong?
A question was asked,

and I just played my song. 

Friday, January 20, 2017

A New Day

day

the earth is flat
from where I am
although
I stretch my vision
further
over the distant horizon
and see
its awesome curves
enveloping me
in a hug
and
upon it I see creatures
great and small
dancing
their daily jig
in fits and starts
tumbling
over one another
making ends meet
racing
​bombing​
​destroying
occupying lands
​, and​
struggling
​,​
 in
boats
ghettos
slums
squalor
and hopelessness
while others
count their cash
dont pay taxes
seek opportunities
to make that extra
buck
deal
transaction
and some 
look for work
feed the baby
water plants
go to school
​mop floors​
​cook food​
​do the laundry​
while
cars roar
planes fly
ships sail
another new day
just dawned 
in 
​a ​
paradise
​called earth​

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

HB101

Human Behavior – Lesson I

Every human has 3 vital ego states in their mind

Dr Eric Berne’s research on transactional analysis classifies them as:

PARENT (P)
ADULT (A)
CHILD (C)

Every statement we make or action we execute is a TRANSACTION (T)

Every feedback we get to that Transaction is a RESPONSE (R)

Let’s take a simple case study. I will use abbreviations as shown above

Husband: "Where are my car keys. I cant find them anywhere"

This is a genuine Transaction (T)

Wife: "You are always leaving your keys here and there all the time and asking me to find them"
This is a Response

The husband’s T was a genuine Adult to Adult request
The wife’s R was a typical Parent to Child one

So if u put

husband                wife
P                              P
A                              A
C                              C

For husband on left side and same for wife on right side u can draw a line for the A to A Transaction of the husbands request.

And u can draw a line from the wife's P to the Husbands C for her Response

So A to A horizontal Transaction line is being crossed by P to C of wife’s Response

Now when the T line is crossed by the R line there will be conflict

If the wife chose to say "OK lets look for it together it must be somewhere around here" then that would be an A to A response.

When the two lines are parallel and do not cut each other there is good relationship and no conflict
So the wife’s response wasn't typical of a mature lady

Temper also comes from insecurity
To flare up n cover the guilt feeling
The other is IMPATIENCE

Sunday, March 6, 2016

Points of View

Do we ever ponder over the virtue of even attempting to try to understand another persons point of view? We all have views and when we do we ought to say, yes I see your point of view too but I think it in this way. I was taught this at an early age and I grew up in an environment where accepting another persons view had no social stigma and where expressing ones own view (even in public) was commended. Good times were had by all. However, it turns out that some people, highly intelligent and intellectual people, seem to be completely unable to admit and accept this. Even when it concerns a trivial matter, such as getting a factoid wrong, the best response I can hope for is a grunt of acknowledgement. I'm not talking about uneducated or intellectually insecure people here. Okay, so a lot of adults don't appreciate being given a differnt point of view. Duly noted. I could move on, but the virtues of scholarship and curiosity compel me to find out why. Predictably Irrational (Ariely) and Influence (Cialdini) don't have the answers. My non-scientific experiments indicate that prefacing a statement with "That idea may be flawed, wrong because..." doesn't work. It seems to make people extra defensive. Standard strategies of persuasion do work, of course. Rephrasing the statement as a question? Works. Saying "Hmm" and pausing before you make your say? Works. Making a suggestion that indirectly points out the point? Yep, works. These are all standard strategies of expression and they can be used to work around the issue but they don't explain why it is that some people have such an aversion to being confronted in the first place. So where does the aversion come from? In a group context signalling could explain it: when you provide a differing view to somebody you draw attention to a possible erring and this could lead to (perceived) loss of status. I don't think this is the real cause because people seem equally annoyed when confronted in a private conversation where there is nobody to signal towards. In cases where signalling takes a dominant role (e.g. when a bunch of guys are talking and a woman joins in) you clearly see a change in behavior because the guys wish to be perceived in a specific way. So in some groups signalling effects can make it more difficult to admit error but signalling is not the underlying cause that makes people averse to acknowledging different views in the first place. Maybe it is an issue of ego. Is another point of view seen as the role of a teacher thereby forcing the other in the student role? That would explain the aversion, but if that's the explicit thought process otherwise rational people would see it doesn't make sense and change their behaviour accordingly. So there can't be an explicit (tactical) thought process underlying the behaviour at all! Maybe people don't wish to admit what they even see as a valid point of view because they prefer to keep it all ambiguous. By admitting, they know that, "I know that they know that they could be wrong". This feels like the most plausible explanation, even though the explicit admission of the issue does not change the state of the shared knowledge: the situation wasn't really ambiguous to start with. So then I'm forced to conclude it's some knee-jerk, gut level aversion to being corrected that has no underlying logic or motivation. I cannot even begin to comprehend this. Given the effort required to find and express ideas openly, honestly and objectively, how can we feel anything but gratitude when somebody points out where we may have been wrong?

Sunday, February 14, 2016

Coming Together

All creatures, big and small, on planet earth have been nurtured, have evolved, and survived through time, creating and building various forms of relationships. This pattern of mutual interaction, for mutual benefit, has existed across all species, irrespective of their location, size, lifestyle or type.

History, culture, religion, and old wives tales have all been contributing factors to establish relationships, the primary of them all being the sexual union for the purpose of procreation and survival of the species. Many relationships, thus initiated, are also guided by superstition, myth, expectations, and servitude. The male, of course, has always been the dominant partner in most relationships across all species.

In Kingdom Animalia, relationships are usually short term and established purely for procreation with minimum emphasis on emotions and staying together. However, some groups do maintain some form of family structure within their tribes in the wild. This also serves as a means of safety and protection for the herd. In some groups its the female who does the hunting while the male takes a break.

Human societies also have a few female dominated groups in South America, Africa, and Asia, closeted within small tribes and castes in remote villages and forests.

Irrespective of the dominant gender, all groups still search for that "soul mate" with whom they think and believe they can spend a lifetime of happiness and contentment. Marriage, is an institution that has been created by religion and culture. While this is now a standard operating procedure across a majority of communities across the globe, there still prevails extra marital relationships, intrigues, and even difficult situations between people in managing their lives. One way of getting out of jail is divorce. However, that facility is not always available in all the prevailing belief systems, even today, in the 21 Century.

Humans meet each other and establish communication and relationships purely based on opportunities that are available to them. One goes to a school or university and makes friends. Some of these early friendships last for long periods of time. Work environments provide another source of contact and making friends. Social clubs, sports, the gym, and other extra curricular activities, bring more opportunities for friendship. Eventually, many of these simple acquaintances lead up to marriage, children, and families. 

Thus the "opportunity" is the main factor that provides us with relationship building. If one was born in Japan, the chances are that he or she will start up a relationship with another Japanese and the same will hold good for anyone else born anywhere on our planet. The search for a soul mate does not necessarily conclude that the one you have met and established s relationship with is the best and only available. It is very possible that there may be so many millions of others out there who will fit the bill better than the one at hand.

So, the specific location, date and time, wherever one may have chosen to live or work, or even have been dumped by situations or events to survive, would eventually be the main criteria for meeting someone and establishing a relationship.

Based on this precept would it not then be correct to conclude that we can easily disable a relationship and enable a new one at any given time?