"I do" but only when they "can" do it too...

Much like dating and premarital sex used to be points of contention in yesteryears, (well ya, Eastern world, it still is) Gay Marriages, not necessarily gay sex, is now a raging debate in constitution. Women's Rights Activism still in its infancy, we already have another section of society under heavy prejudice, fighting for acknowledgment, survival and legitimacy.

An excerpt from "The Philosophy Gym", one of my favorite books,
(http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Gym-Short-Adventures-Thinking/dp/0312314523/sr=8-2/qid=1165976793/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-9744516-4390206?ie=UTF8&s=books)

God: "Wrong? Is it wrong?"
Jarvis: "You said so yourself in the Bible"
God: "Ah, the Bible, why do you assume that the Bible is a hundred per cent reliable?
Jarvis: "You mean it's not?"
God: "I didn't say that. But look, if you plan to base your morality entirely on the contents of
one book, you'd better be sure that it's the right book. And you'd better be sure to what extent it can be relied upon, hadn't you?

The Lord pointing to the Bible in Jarvis's lap.

God: "Flip back a couple of pages. Scan down a bit. That's it. Leviticus xi, 7-8. What does it say?
Jarvis: "'And the swine, though he divide the hoof...he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat'."
God: "Ever eaten a bacon sandwich? Then you have sinned! Now a little further down."
Jarvis: "''These shall ye eat of all that are the waters; whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales...'"
God: "'...ye shall not eat of their flesh.'. Didn't your last meal include moules marinière? Why aren't you Christians boycotting seafood restaurants and warning of perils of lobster thermidor?"

Jarvis turns a bit pale.

God: "If you read over the page from the passage about homosexuality, you will discover that it's also wrong to wear a jacket made from a linen/wool mix.
Jarvis: "I hadn't notice that before."
God: "Further it says it's sinful to lend money for interest. Yet you condemn not one of these things, do you?"
Jarvis: "No."
God: "But you confidently cite that particular passage of Leviticus to justify your condemnation of homosexuality. It seems you are picking and choosing.

(p.s. this couple near columbus circle almost gave me one of the most candid moments, but i was a fraction late to press the shutter, evidently!)

Bugs

Of the 7000 off years of human civilization, many social institutions and ideas have come to be established. But rarely have they been revised. And even if they have, the rate of revision seems to be far slower than the rate of revision in non-social institutions / organizations like business, education or software. I'd like to call these unrevised social institutions as "social software". Perhaps invisible, but they are software none the less. We feel the need to use them. We "buy" them ( yes we pay a price or two :) ) and sometimes also dispense them.

A computer software, created keeping the customer requirements in mind, and intensely geared towards customer satisfaction, roughly goes through 4 major revisions a year. It either did not necessarily conform to the needs/requirements of the customer or it contained bugs. Social software, on the other hand was created, not necessarily keeping customer satisfaction in mind. There was perhaps, little survey, and almost no feedback loop. Is it so incomprehensible that it could contain "bugs"? or that it indeed did not satisfy the said requirement.

Sometimes, companies create new software for a certain need instead of packing it in a current software, so as to relieve the customer of the extra baggage and redundancy. My own company, DataSynapse, is now working on establishing credibility for its new software, "FabricServer", that facilitates distribution of web servers, while its previous product, "GridServer" facilitates parallel computing by distributing libraries (DLLs, POJO, Assemblies) They couldve added the new functionality to GridServer but they deemed it prudent to go in for a new software. It was a decision based on market research, customer surveys, as also in-house discussions and deliberations. It made sense. One size does not fit all. Customization has become the key factor in staying competitive...Why then, is it so incomprehensible that social institutions too, do not necessarily satisfy the needs of all "customers" and perhaps newer institutions need to be established?

Marriage seems a one-stop shop for sex, companionship, emotional and financial stability, social benefits and many other needs. While it may boast of being able to provide all of the above under the "same roof", it seems to leave little room for customization. Perhaps a 9th need may indulge a customer which perhaps is in contradiction to some of the needs, rights or privileges, that outline marriage. Of course, what exactly these rights or privileges are, remain undefined to this day, and best leaft to the imagination of the customer! Can you believe we actually have been buying something for centuries without a spec!??? Isn't it funny that we customize and re-customize computer software to satisfy the capricious needs of clients, and yet, social-software like marriage, largely undefined, are thought of as one-stop shops, where one size fits all?

While a non-satisfactory software can easily be dispensed with, or requested alteration, a similar approach to a social software like marriage does not seem possible. "Cmon, people are not software! You cant just deal with them the same way! You cannot get so technical about this!..." is the favorite rebuttal from the puritans. Yes of course, people are not software and they need to be dealt with more "respect" than perhaps a computer software. But that fact only strengthens the case for a more thoughtful process in evaluating and using these social software. If it is so obvious that people are more "important" than software, then why is it so incomprehensible that more thought needs to be put into creating and using social software as opposed to computer software? In fact, interviews for HR managers and others requiring to work closely with people, contain a barrage of questions pertaining to their social and communication skills. Even developers like myself have to go through one of these rounds in order to prove I am socially competent to work, in addition to my programming prowess. Why then must the same logic not be applied to more informal social institutions like marriage?

Apparently it shouldn't. Apparently, we must go through life and all its software because we "must". We have "no choice". And we have no choice since we have no control and we have no control since we have transferred it to the Matrix. (the Matrix?? Read previous post)

The Allegory of the Cave

"The Matrix", will perhaps remain my favorite movie of all time. It simply extends beyond the realms of 'science fiction' and provides a crash course in philosophy in such delightful and engaging fashion, that students now have a renewed interest in the subject. It is so hard to separate "The Matrix" from philosophy that it came as no surprise to me discovering Plato to have dwelled in the concept of the Matrix around 520 B.C., through his "Allegory of the Cave". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave)

The Matrix indeed has us. It is everywhere. It is present even in this coffeehouse that I write this in. Whether or not the purpose of the Matrix is to blind us from "the truth", is uncertain. However, perhaps inadvertently, that is exactly what it is doing!

Every assumption we make, in independence or in defiance of reason, contributes to the Matrix. This is not to belittle 'beliefs' or 'emotions' which be said to lie beyond the realm of reason. Emotions, apparently, are beyond logic. I respectfully disagree. Beliefs and emotions have their own language and can be interpreted just as logically as anything else; as illustrated beautifully by Daniel Goleman in his much acclaimed book, "Emotional Intelligence". Perhaps the world of beliefs and emotions contain far more axioms than other worlds, nonetheless, they can be explained far more logically than we think they can. Everything has a reason and a purpose, and every action, feeling, belief or emotion can be traced back much further than we think they can. The axioms are contained far deeper in this chain of reason than what meets the 'eye'. Well, perhaps the word 'psychiatry' rings a bell.

So there is reason. But each time we choose to ignore it, either willfully or ignorantly, the Matrix grows stronger and stronger; in our minds, in our lives, and thus in our world. And each time we let that happen, we transfer "control" from ourselves to the Matrix. Lack of control leads to lack of "choices". After all, choice can be said to be an illusion created between those with power and those without. I mean, ofcourse my "lack of choice" in getting to work at 9 am tomorrow lies with the kind of control I have given my job and its financial security. This is not to say that it would be better to take that control back and not go to work. But getting back control can be as simple as recognizing this dynamic, recognizing the 'why' and being aware of it. As Socrates succinctly put it, "An unexamined life is not worth living". The only way to escape the Matrix is to examine it - examine life itself.