Interpretations on Basil Labib

'Please myself': An interpretation 30 years later

gs454236@gmail.com (Basil Labib) — Sat, 11 Sep 2021 08:02:53 +0530

Polly, a common American girl name, quickly rose to fame as the 6th songtrack on Nirvana’s second album, Nevermind, one of the best-selling albums of all time, having sold over 30 million copies since its release in 1991.

Polly became a conversation starter, an ice-breaker, a household catalyst for people everywhere to talk about woman abuse. Polly is a protest song, a song born out of the anguish that Kurt felt for the condition and treatment of woman in the society. It has often been dubbed as Nirvana’s “darkest” song – which, in my opinion, is a fairly glorified sobriquet because most of Nirvana’s songs are dark and ghastly.

Polly is striking from the moment the first two lines of the verse are sung. The simple chord progression that Kurt repeats over and over again throughout the song draws the audience in to suspend the job at hand and listen which is what he wants the audience to do. Unlike, the other songs on Nevermind which are loud and choked of wailing guitars and pounding drums, making it a task for the brain to process the lyrics, Polly is eerily antithetical.

Structure of the song

Let me spare a few lines to talk about the simple structure of Polly. Most of Nirvana songs are simple in structure, generally following the rock song structure with minimal lyrics, often the same phrase repeated over and over again for chorus as seen in “Lithium”, “Breed”, “Smells like Teen Spirit” and “Stay Away”.

4 bars of a simple Em-G-D-C progression repeated twice forms the intro followed by the first verse and chorus. A 8 bar break followed by the second verse and the chorus. Then, interestingly there is a little interludic bass solo by presumably Krist Novoselic. The outro is marked by the third verse and the chorus. That’s it. Drums are non-existent, the over-driven electric guitar is traded for an acoustic and the progression is the same throughout.

The lyrics

“Polly wants a cracker
I think I should get off her first”

Kurt puts us straight into the shoes of the rapist. This choice of perspective is a genius of Cobain who crafts a song that is chilling and introspective at the same time. Not only do we get a glimpse of what goes on in his mind, it compels us to ask ourselves how we would have reacted in such a situation. Kurt sings, in a disconnected, nonchalant tone expressing the casual mindset of the rapist, harsh and striking words and never in complete sentences which is almost a signature of the band. But those phrases give us enough clue to pieces together everything we need, a ghastly portrayal of an outrageous and vicious crime.

“I think she wants some water
To put out the blow torch”

The lyrics get extremely vivid and explicit, the imagery are very disturbing as it goes on to describe everything that happens to the girl as the rapist sees it. A 14-year old girl was kidnapped from a local rock concert in Tacoma, Washington in the August of 1987 by a man with a history of such crimes. She was raped and tortured with a blow torch while hanging upside down.

“Isn’t me, have a seed
Let me clip your dirty wings”

We can listen to the rapist’s mind screaming in a state of confusion and delusion, asking itself what to do next. He is in a deliberation with himself if he should bring the girl some water or whether he should untie her.

“Want some help, please myself”

Perhaps, the most disconcerting is the last line of the chorus. It bares before us the motive of the crime. The criminal isn’t capable of sustaining himself. From his perspective, he is in need of help. And believes that the girl can help him. What do we understand about the psychology of this feeble man? He is vicious and self-imposing and yet his malices are motivated by a desire to be pleased. Though, there is nothing wrong with wanting to be please yet the path that this man takes is evil and that is the underlying conflict between the criminal and the victim.

When and how I was introduced to Nirvana

I was born more than a decade after Nevermind first hit the shelves of record stores. Moreover, I was born into the era of online streaming. I haven’t seen a record player, let alone held a vinyl record in my hands! (Not very happy about it, though) I was introduced to Nirvana quite late in my music exploration journey. I was mostly into rock those days and tried “Lithium” for the first time. The “Yeah” chorus sent me into a semi trance-like state. It was the embodiment of nonchalance, angst and everything teenager. The quirky lyrics and the instantly recognizable riff. I liked it. However, it was much later that I actually listened to “Smells Like Teen Spirit” and didn’t like it that much at first. On a second revisit, it became one of my favourite songs. And that’s how I listened to Nevermind. PS: I am still yet to listen to their entire discography which I have constantly procrastinated telling myself that I’m waiting for that perfect moment to listen to them!

Nirvana was a feminist band and why that’s important

Nirvana. From left: Krist Novoselic (bass), Dave Grohl (drums) and Kurt Cobain (guitar and vocals)

As you stroll through Nirvana’s song palace, one feature is consistently recurrent. Kurt, the principal songwriter for the band, cared about women. He was a feminist and pro-LGBTQ+ before these became mainstream and vocal which is a pretty cool thing. Most of his songs are marred by such lyrics:

“Never met a wise man, if so, it’s a woman”
~Territorial Pissings, Nevermind (1991)

“God is Gay”
~Stay Away, Nevermind (1991)

“Polly says her back hurts”
~Polly, Nevermind (1991)

“I don’t mean to stare, we don’t have to breed”
~Breed, Nevermind (1991)

So, when he heard about the crime, it was inevitable that he would leverage his position to get people talking. He often combined the freedom and expertise of his art with the prevailing social conditions and norms. Bob Dylan once remarked after listening to Polly, “The kid has got a heart”. Dylan was a folk singer-songwriter and widely acclaimed for his protest songs (“Times They Are A’ Changing”) of the 50s-60s and his role in shaping American history and minds.

There is a sweet parallel as Nirvana were seen as the spokesmen for the 90s generation to whom the squaling guitars and deafening sounds bore testimony to their inner angst and anger. Though, Kurt pioneered a completely different music genre called “Grunge Rock”, he was praised by a folk singer which goes on to say that art is ultimately a unified form.

In fact, art supercedes musics, generations and even other disciplines. I cringe when teachers and educators profess and segregate students. What is a microprocessor’s cricuit diagram if not art? Or the traverse section of a human heart? Anyone bold enough to express himself is an artist.

Notes, Footnotes and Credits

Nevermind was released on September 24th, 1991. In a couple of weeks, the album will turn 30 (Oh boy, it’s almost twice my age!). This post is my tribute to the band who spoke for a generation I have never known.
Footnote 1: Umm, Basil, why are there no weird he/she, him/her in this artice? Are the girls not represented? Good question. Please read this to understand the inherent limitation of the language I an working under .
I would like to thank Nerdwriter1 on YouTube. Check out his video for an audio visual experience. Also, I’d like to thank Micheal Azerrad for his book, “Come as you are: The story of Nirvana”.

To be or not to be: Understanding Hamlet

gs454236@gmail.com (Basil Labib) — Tue, 31 Aug 2021 10:20:23 +0530

Volumes have been written on the “meaning” of Hamlet (the play) by more qualified people than me. I do not seek to compete with them. What follows is my perception of Hamlet, a sketch so if you will, from a modern day perspective.

Hamlet is a complex character. I have strived to deduce Hamlet strictly from the source text and not get influenced by writings elsewhere because I feel external analysis somehow shrouds (glorifies or diminishs, whichever) the essence of what Shakespeare intended. I also acknowledge there are passages and portions that are still unclear to me. I take them as deficiencies on my part and the excellence of the play.

Act 1, Scene 2

Hamlet
Seems,madam! nay it is; I know not “seems.”
’Tis not alone my inky cloak, good mother,
Nor customary suits of solemn black,
Nor windy suspiration of forced breath,
No, nor the fruitful river in the eye,
Nor the dejected havior of the visage,
Together with all forms, moods shapes of grief,
That can denote me truly. These indeed seem,
For they are actions that a man might play,
But I have that within which passeth show;
These but the trappings and the suits of woe.

Paraphrase:

Hamlet
Seems? No, it is. I do not know how to “seem”.
It is not my inky coat, mother,
nor the conventional black suits,
nor the forceful restrained/artificial sighs,
nor the copious tears in my eyes,
nor the frowning on my face,
together with all forms, moods and shapes of grief
that can truly represent my sadness. These may seem
like actions that man may act upon,
But I feel and that feeling surpasses show
of these frowning and crying and black suits.

Hamlet’s first speech in the play in response to her mother who suggests that his father’s demise shouldn’t affect him in such grave manners. Multiple facets of Hamlet can be deduced from this text itself. The first striking observation that a reader will make (in retrospect to the characters so far) is his superior choice of words, usage of similies and eloquence in speech all indicating an educated, civilized mind, and a modest upbringing. He sharply criticises his mother for asking him to “move on” which suggest an authoritative, disciplined prince capable of experiencing deep emotions and who mourns his father’s death with sincere remorse.

Act 1, Scene 4

Hamlet
…This heavy-headed revel east and west
Makes us traduced and taxed of other nations.
They clepe us drunkards, and with swinish phrase
Soil our addition, and indeed it takes
From our achievements, though performed at height,
The pith and marrow of our attribute…

Hamlet
…This heavy-headed (drunken) revelry everywhere
Makes Denmark slandered/looked down upon by other nations
They call us drunkards, with gross/coarse phrases.
Malign our titles, and injures
our achievements, though accomplished at the highest level,
which are an essential and vital part of our reputation…

Hamlet’s uncle, the present King of Denmark, is having a debaucherous party. Hamlet’s personality befitting a king shines through before his coronation. He is concerned about the reputation of Denmark in the eyes of other nations and how they perceive his kingdom. He succintly criticises his uncle and doesn’t mince words in pointing out the malicious at a time when aristocracy was generally wary of their opinions and words.

Act 1, Scene 5

Hamlet
…And so, without more circumstance at all,
I hold it fit that we shake hands and part,
You, as your business and desire shall point you;
For every man has business and desire,
Such as it is, and for mine own poor part,
Look you, I’ll go pray.

Hamlet
…And so, without any further detail at all,
I think it is suitable that we shake hands and part,
You, as your business and desire shall guide you;
For every man has business and desire,
Such as it is, and for mine own humble part,
Look at me, I’ll go and pray.

This is a crucial point in the play where Hamlet has just conversed with the Ghost (the spirit of his slain father) who has revealed to him the serpentine nature of his uncle and asked him to revenge the scandal. Upon a lot of insistence and request from his friends, even his trusty Horatio, he doesn’t reveal to them anything. Hamlet’s prudence and diplomacy is highlighted. He is not swayed by excitement or passion. He has taken the task by heart and won’t take any chances that might culminate in its collapse.

Act 2, Scene 2

This is a long scene and a lot of different plots progresses through it.

Hamlet is eloquent and learned. Excellent memory. Recited the play speech (Slaying of Pyrrhus by Priam and the reaction of his wife Hecuba) almost impromptu by heart and with good deliverance as remarked by Polonius who was standing nearby. The speech is skipped as it will bloat this essay.
Am I a coward?

First instance when Hamlet is doubtful of his passion to pursue his vengeance. It is not surprising that a slew of modern phrases in English draws from Shakespeare. His words succintly flows from the instinctive thoughts of man.

The devil hath power T’ assume a pleasing shape…

Hamlet is analytical and thoughtful. He judges a situation from every aspect. He is cunning enough to setup experiments to test his postulates and wants to ascertain the guilt of his uncle before seeking revenge. He is aware that the devil might assume a pleasing shape (for instance, the ghost of his father) and exploit his youthful passion to make him commit a sin and hence damn him.

Act 3, Scene 1

“…That if you be fair and honest, your honesty shall admit no discourse to your beauty.”

Is Hamlet talking abour fidelity and adultery? I am in the dark in these lines.

This scene is home to perhaps the most famous of Shakespeare’s phrases. Yet, I believe the brilliance lies in the speech in its entirety which is paraphrased here for better understanding.

Hamlet To be, or not to be: that is the question.
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die, to sleep
No more, and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to. ’Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep –
To sleep, perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil
Must give us pause.There’s the respect
That makes calamity of so long life –
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The pangs of despisèd love, the law’s delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of th’ unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of ?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action.

Hamlet To exist or not to exist: that is the question.
Whether it is befitting to the mind to suffer/endure
The challenges and hurdles of outrageous fortune/life,
Or to revolt against the sea of troubles,
And end them by opposing them? To die, to sleep no more (the mortal sleep),
and say adieu to the heart ache and the thousand natural shocks
that mortal flesh is entitled to by sleeping forever. It is an end
to be wished for devoutly. To die, to sleep –
To sleep, perhaps to dream: ah, but there’s the conflict,
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have gotten rid of this mortal tangle of obligations
It must give us rest. That is the matter/point
That makes a disaster of such a long life –
For who would bear the pain and insults of time,
The oppression of the oppressor, the arrogant man’s abuse,
The pain of hated love, the delay in seeking justice,
The contemptous speech of officeholders, and the rejections
That the patient ordinary person endures,
When he can discharge himself from the debt of life
With a bare dagger? Who would bear burdens of sorrow,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But the dread of that something after death,
The undiscovered country from whose borders
No traveller returns, confuses the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we do not know about?
Thus our consciousness/awareness of moral obligations makes cowards of us all,
And thus the original passion of resolution
Is painted with the pale gray of considerations,
And initiatives of great height and weight
With this regard have their objectives muddled/perverted
And thus lose the effectiveness of action/being acted upon…

Act 3, Scene 2

Ophelia Tis brief, my lord.
Hamlet As woman’s love.

Quick witted and a presence of mind. Ophelia, Polonius’ daughter and the play’s heroine, is describing the short preamble to the play being enacted for the King (Yes, a play within a play).

Hamlet
Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you
make of me! You would play upon me; you would seem to
know my stops; you would pluck out the heart of my
mystery; you would sound me from my lowest note to
the top of my compass – and there is much music,
excellent voice, in this little organ, yet cannot you make it
speak. ’Sblood, do you think I am easier to be played on than
a pipe? Call me what instrument you will, though you can
fret me, yet you cannot play upon me.

Here, Hamlet is criticizing his friend Rosencrantz for secretly conspiring with the King to spy upon him and extract from him the true nature of his “madness”. Hamlet is prompt in pointing out what people are trying to do. He can handle confrontations well when the need arises. He isn’t easily manipulated.

Act 4, Scene 3

Hamlet
Not where he eats,but where ’a is eaten. A certain
convocation of politic worms are e’en at him. Your worm
is your only emperor for diet. We fat all creatures else to fat
us, and we fat ourselves for maggots. Your fat king and your
lean beggar is but variable service – two dishes, but to one table.
That’s the end.

Hamlet
He (Polonius) is not where he eats, but is where he is being eaten.
An assembly of diplomatic worms
are feeding on him now. The worm
is the emperor of all diets. We fatten all creatures to eat them, but we fatten ourselves for the maggots. Your volumptous king and the skinny beggar are only a variation in the courses served (to the worms) – two dishes at the same earth/grave.
That’s the end.

Well spoken. And then immediately,

“A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a king, and eat of the fish that hath fed of that worm.”

A man may fish with a worm that has fed on a king and then eat of the fish that was caught by the worm.

In essence, how a common man can eat the king.

Act 5, Scene 1

This is a very interesting and tense scene. The different subplots have developed to a climax and are yearning to be resolved. Perhaps the most dramatic is Laertes’ hatred towards Hamlet for the death of Polonius and his sister. He fearlessly proclaims, “The devil take thy soul!”. The first half of the scene has many interesting monologues by Hamlet emphasising on the transitory nature of life and privileges. For example:

Hamlet To what base uses we may return, Horatio! Why may not imagination trace the noble dust of Alexander, till he find it stopping a bing-hole?

Hamlet To what degraded use we may return, Horatio! Why may not thoughts trace the ash of Alexander from its grave to stopping the bottle of liquor (that is, become a cork)?

The ash is washed into the soil, that soil is used to make loam and eventually corks which sit on top of liquor bottles. To think so critically and speak so liberally does require a confident and thoughtful mind. This part is littered by Hamlet justifying the meaninglessness of property, fame and worldly possessions for after all, everyone has to inevitably return to the same dirt.

Laertes is a figure in himself to be reckoned with. I have only been quoting Hamlet so for a change,

Laertes Now pile your dust upon the quick and dead
Till of this flat a mountain you have made
To o’ertop old Pelion or the skyish head
Of blue Olympus.

Laertes, Polonius’ son, is overcome with extreme grief at his sister’s death (probably a suicide as may be inferred from the discussion on her method and ceremony of burial). The Olympians were said to live on Mount Olympus, the highest mountain unreachable by mortals. Often, the giants tried to reach and overthrow it by stacking mountains on top of others. Pelion was one such mountain stacked on Mount Ossa. This is quite a striking manner of expressing sadness and hints at the learned, chivalric nature of Laertes.

Thoughtful dialogues

Hamlet …For there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.
Player King (to Player Queen) What to ourselves in passion we propose,
The passion ending, doth the purpose lose.
Player King (to Player Queen) What we claim/propose in moments of ecstasy/passion, Loses its potency when that moment of passion recedes.
Player King This world is not for aye, nor ’tis not strange
That even our loves should with our fortunes change,
For ’tis a question left us yet to prove,
Whether love lead fortune, or else fortune love.
Player King This world/the condition that prevails is not forever and it is not strange
If we change our lovers with our fortunes,
For it is a question still unproven,
Whether love guides fortune, or fortune leads love.

In essence asking: Is love a morality or an economic convenience?

Ophelia …we know what we are, but know not what we may be.
Hamlet …The hand of little employment hath the daintier sense.
Hamlet …Those who work little and know little about hardship (the aristocracy) have much delicate feelings/interpretations of life.

How relevant is Hamlet today?

And a more practical question, should you read Hamlet today? Yes, by all means. The hype and reverance that enshrouds Hamlet is justified. Being one of the most significant plays by argubly the greatest playwright in English literature, it justifies its position with its brilliance. The language, the symbolism, the metaphors, analogies are potent, coherent and dramatic.

Hamlet, the prince, who we started out to understand, is without doubt a prominent and poignant Shakespearean prince. He is learned and thoughtful. Analytical, witty and cunning, he understands diplomacy and social interactions well. But to clarify, I think Hamlet is flawed too. He did hesitate and waver when he could have easily revenged his father’s death. He was in a constant conflict with his conscience and the people without. His brilliance shines in handling them well, both within and without but he lost sight of his objective and became something else. He couldn’t confess his love for Ophelia when she was alive and only naively did so at her funeral. He is a hero and an antihero at the same time.

Is Governance Really So Difficult?

gs454236@gmail.com (Basil Labib) — Thu, 15 Jul 2021 13:15:37 +0530

Why is taking economic decisions at a national level such a tantalizing task? Why do government policies fail (sometimes miserably)? Why are people still living on the streets under BPL?

You can expose yourself to an array of criticism and theories spun by supposedly thoughtful individuals at any cafe. These folks go on blurting how the present is worse than a decade ago and on and on. I had heard about their side, I wanted to know about the other side too.

Does anybody know how to govern? How to implement schemes and incentive programs to propel a nation to zero inequality, equitable distribution and a teeming economy? The truth is, nobody knows. Neither the cafe hotshot nor the Chief Economic Advisor to the President. It is because systems such as human society are bafflingly complex. Let me share a simple scenario that highlights how incentives can play out in the real world.

A Tale of Two Companies

Logical behavior of rational humans acting in their own best interest end up making the situation worse off for all — Prisoner’s dilemma.

Imagine a town that is infested by rats. To solve the rat problem, two companies are formed. One sells rat traps and the other sells rat poison. Sales were good and gradually, the rat population started to dwindle.

For sake of argument, let’s say a rat trap sells for $100 and rat poison for $50. The town has 1000 customers, 500 of which go to Rat Poison Company (RPC) and 500 buy from Rat Trap Company (RTC).

Company	Share of market	Number of customer * Profit per customer	Total profit
Rat Trap Company (RTC)	50%	500 * $100	$50000
Rat Poison Company (RPC)	50%	500 * $50	$25000

Both companies have a share of the market based on marketing, customer preference and most importantly, the financial demography of the town (which basically means those who can’t afford expensive goods won’t buy it).

But one day, the manager at RTC had an ingenious idea. He summoned the manager of its rival RPC to a secret meeting and coolly laid out his plan before him. By the end of their secret meeting, both parties were shaking hands and grinning sheepishly.

To everyone’s surprise, the sales of RPC started declining. And it didn’t recover. In fact, RTC ended up dominating the market. Why? The potency of rat poison produced by RPC was decreasing thereby making them ineffective to kill rats. And because rats were an imminent mishap to the town in the absence of a preventive measure, those who used rat poison were forced to switch to rat traps.

This raises the very interesting question, why did RPC allow itself to suffer lose and possibly bankruptcy? Can you figure out what is happening here? (Hint: Think incentives).

Here is what happened at that secret rendezvous of the competitors. RTC stated flatly that because they were competing for market dominance, both of them were depriving themselves of potential profit. So, they asked RPC to deliberately reduce the effectiveness of their poison. This will force all customers to buy rat traps because they cannot do without.

Company	Share of market	Number of customer * Profit per customer	Total profit
Rat Trap Company	100%	1000 * $100	$100000
Rat Poison Company	0%	0 * $50	$0

Rat Trap Company promised RPC to give them $35000/mo as reimbursement. RTC pockets an additional $15000 and RPC gets an additional $10000 without doing anything. The companies walk home not only pulling money from thin air but also becoming brothers in conspiracy. This is the reason why the rivals were shaking hands and grinning at the confidential meeting.

Is this optimal?

As morally upsetting and conventionally twisted this arrangement might seem, according to an economist, it is a perfectly justified case of how firms act in ways to optimize profit. Why? Because incentives!

She might even approve of this strategy but she won’t. Because the firms actions don’t play out in a vacuum. They affect everybody in the real world. So, is this arrangement bad? Yes. Very bad.

As there is virtually no competition to RTC, they can establish a monopoly and charge whatever they want. This is detrimental to the customers who are forced to pay more because of their constrained circumstance (the rat problem). Money that should pay electric bill goes to buy traps. Hospital bills for Uncle Sam’s treatment goes unpaid. You get the point.
Lack of competition stifles any attempt at innovation. People look for better ways to do things in the hopes of making profits off a successful venture (an invention, a discovery etc). Innovation creates real value in society. Lack of innovation will lead to a dead-end of real value growth, making everybody in the town worse off in the long run.
Concentration of wealth. Money that should go to pay for a youth’s college is going into the hands of RPC and RTC. Wealth inequality is almost always an indicator of a poor economy. Because, people can’t get exponentially productive and if earning is a measure of one’s productivity, how are a selected few earning exponential gains especially when the town cannot afford to send kids to college? (Note: Exponential gain in itself is not an anomaly, especially in a highly advanced society. Think Zuckerberg creating Facebook. That was instantaneous creation of a lot of value and simultaneously, a fountain of exponential profit for Mark).

This is something I cooked up but it is not hard to see how such incentive driven behavior can affect others, the people and the environment. Such behavior plays out all the time across thousands of companies and firms in inconceivable ways. The real question is, Can we do any better at understanding this web of intricacy?

I was motivated to think about incentives while reading the newspaper today. Hilsa, a sought-after fish species, swims to the river to lay eggs in still water and then swim back to the sea. Newborn Hilsa then join the sea later. Fishing of young Hilsa is banned around the Bay of Bengal. However, due to skyrocketing petrol prices, fishermen are unable to keep up their profits. That further supplemented by Covid induced demand slash has forced them to break law and fish in the river or near the shores thereby depleting the young Hilsa population fiercely who are caught in finer fishing nets while swimming back to the sea. Seemingly unrelated, eh?

In conclusion

I found sharing these scenarios fruitful because they concisely highlight how is it not obvious to anticipate human behavior.

It is buffoonery to criticise someone without prior knowledge of all facets relevant to the case. With that note, governments (good governments at least) always optimize their decisions in the long-run. And at the hazard of sounding obvious, behavioral economics is a fucking awesome subject to study!

Think, Wait and Fast

gs454236@gmail.com (Basil Labib) — Sun, 06 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0000

In the book “Siddhartha” by Herman Hesse – the protagonist, who is a Samana (a homeless hermit), is enchanted by the beauty of a woman named Kamala. On their first discourse, Kamala asks him what is he capable of doing that he can trade for money, pretty clothes, shoes, sweet perfumes and gifts for her. To which Siddhartha replies,

“I can think. I can wait. I can fast.”

I think that is a very profound answer and it will do ignorant fools like us much good if we make an attempt to comprehend it.

“I can think”

What does Hesse mean by “think”? Here’s my two cents: “think” is a metaphor for everything we can affect. The universe may be unforgiving and wild but our minds do have a certain say in certain matters. It is our responsibility to seek education, contribute to the productivity of the community, demand reward in return of our efforts, tie in matrimony with suitable partners, rear children et cetera(The pedantics may take to the comment section to tell me how wrong I am. We can sort it out there). All these worldly responsibilities cannot be fulfilled if we are selfish. Running away from them, seeking happiness in isolation and frugality is a valid (and selfish) way of life but in my opinion, not a optimal one. Just because the world is dying of global warming and degradation doesn’t mean we use fancy terms to run away from our duties. If we turn something bad, it is our duty to mend it, not run away from it (Footnote 1).

Herein lies a caveat though, engaging in worldly activities invariably implies invitation to negative emotions like desire, greed, jealousy and so on. By clear and rational thinking, we can be sure to not pursue a path of unfairness and uphold our modesty, chivalry and conviction while being gentle, kind and honest to our immediate brethren. Thus, it is prudent and crucial that such capability of thought be actively cultivated in minds, young and experienced alike.

“I can wait”

Hmm, here we enter the territory of the spiritual. I hold that there is indeed a way of life that is meaningful, fulfilling and full of happiness (Footnote 2). It involves plucking many ideas from many different trees in the garden of the collective human thought and preparing a recipe (Your author here is still in pursuit of that recipe, however). One of these ideas is waiting. A metaphor, of course.

Waiting for what? Nothing. And everything. Lao tzu talks about it beautifully in “Tao Te Ching”. Frankly, the idea bears quite resemblance to Lao’s scheme. It is the realization that you are nothing but a fool in the grand scheme of things (Reading astronomy at a young age helps in this realization, I have found) and subsequent acceptance that you, as a spectator, can only watch as things unfold before you. The world composed of other ignorants like you can exercise such a effect on you yet individually, we end up being at their mercy. Don’t believe me? Then, why do people get late for office meetings? If they really are so powerful, why not stop all the traffic in the first place? Or why is it that most people fail miserably in relationships that they try to actively seek out? (Naive examples but I cannot think of better ones at the moment).

Most importantly, desperation is never an answer. And neither is shouting or rage or profanity or the myriad of others, all of them offsprings of desperation.

“I can fast”

“Fasting” is a metaphor for restrain and abstinence. It is indeed a simple idea. What will make you restless if you have nothing to be restless about? Isn’t that powerful?

There is a bit of a contradiction here, perhaps my pedantic readers will notice. Engaging in society means desiring materialistic wealth and chasing romantic oppurtunities. How can one fast then? That is the beauty of it. Tzu uses the phrase, “To stand at the center”. Yes, to experience everything, good, evil, pure, noble, unchaste, corrupt, sinful and yet, not be moved by anything at all.

Conclude

Most fundamental ideas are beautiful. And beautiful ideas are utterly simple. Is this the ultimate guide to life? Far from it. Learning is not the recitation of words written down or the memorization of facts but the courage to question them and find even simple answers. May this serve as an inspiration to those who listen and set them on their own journey of finding their answers.

To perpetual learning.

Footnote 1: The pace at which modern society has evolved is blistening. Since the Information Age, we have developed far faster than we are capable of comprehending. This blinding growth (both numerical and technological) is at its worse, a recipe for disaster. Ignorance is evil, it always has been. But today, how to make sense of the information explosion? So most people don’t. What hurts most is not the absence of knowledge but partial knowledge. That is indeed the case today. Access to information should be coupled with education in order to yield it effectively. Impulsive youth can easily be swayed by baseless arguments and stage upheaval. Prudent assessment of all facts is key to survival and flourishment of us. Today, it makes us both vulnerable and powerful than ever before.

Footnote 2: And today, more than ever in our history, it is possible to achieve that.

Thoughts: UNIX - History and Memoir (Book)

gs454236@gmail.com (Basil Labib) — Tue, 30 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0000

It’s always good to know about the things you love the most. It somehow makes you love them even more. I am glad non-living things are not stupidly self-conscious and self-doubting like us and I can understand them more deeply than I can understand other humans.

Some mind(ful|less) blabberings

With that said, I enjoyed this book. In Brian’s succint prose, he recollects the history of the mother of all operating systems: UNIX. And along the way, describes the sideways development that it encouraged such as the development of C (the “lingua franca of computing”), various timeless tools like grep, awk, sed, yacc, lex, make, document formatters and so on. He talks about what lead to the development of UNIX and ruminates on the kind of environment contagious to such breakthroughs. Unfettered management, fun atmosphere, great minds, stable funding and the freedom and willingness to solve real-world problems. He also points out and clear a lot of the admittedly confusing history that is the legacy of Unix as the (licensed) source code of Unix reached Berkeley. As he correctly pointed out, AT&T tried to “lock the barn door after the crown jewels had flown the coop”. And then we had BSD, Minix, Linux, Xenix and yada yada.

He talks about the revered “Unix philosophy” and spells it out in its entirety which is what I was looking for. He talks about the genius of Ken Thompson (May the Nerd God bless him), the technical eloquence of Dennis Ritchie, the management of Doug and so on. Who wouldn’t love to work at a place where people respect and rever things they loves?

He kind of skims very gently on the technical innovation that Unix brought to the table such as pipes, hierarchial file system, user-level shell programs along with the basic good design decisions and principles of system design.

He talks about pranks on other colleagues, defiance of the management and other geeky things that sound wholesome and naive (It makes me feel that Gods do sometimes play). He points out rather coyly the Unix system in use in the Jurassic Park which controlled the security locks and latches and how Lex navigated it and saved the day. He talks about the infamous comment in the Unix source code that apparently described code responsible for context-switching between processes and it went like:

/** You are not expected to understand this. **/

I think I can safely attribute the code it described to Ken :P.

And he did all that in his usual mix of humour and nostalgia which is heart-warming and I guess will be to anyone who had helped build something that has literally changed the world.

The masters have shown the way, it is time we lead.

Logs

This was a (relatively) short book and I think I completed it in three to four sittings. I finished it on Mar 30, 2021 though I’m sure to dig into the myriad of resources Brian has linked to. I also want to get my hands on the Unix src (6th edition) preferably with Lions’ commentary.

Thoughts: The Selfish Gene (Book)

gs454236@gmail.com (Basil Labib) — Wed, 30 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0000

Abstract

My favourite non-fiction read of 2020.

Devil in the details

With natural selection manifesting itself in the most outspoken of ways this year, it was most apt that I stumbled upon this book. (A Twitter suggestion by PG) And I must say it’s quite a lovable book (for rational and open individuals, anyway).

It’s a book about evolution from the perspective of the gene; the so-called “selfish gene theory”. Dawkins asks the question, “What if evolution happens at the genetic level, individuals and species being mere vehicles (contrary to popular belief that Darwinism is focused on the organism level)?” The book is basically an answer to that question. And such a magnificent work, with Dawkins well-formed ideas coupled with intriguing (read: very bizarre) examples from the kingdom of life presented in his terse words. Perhaps never had a book been so opaque in nature yet so transparent at the same time.

I can safely say a part of me (my ideas) resides in the pages of this book. It is humbling to know what we truly are and even more terrifying to know that we can understand us ourselves. The book invites criticism for some of its “purple passages” but as it is said, truth is what it is. On the face of it, Dawkins may look like a vile antihumanist but on the contrary, he’s doing better than most humans in being outspoken and hence, helping in disrobing that fake robe of arrogance and pride some of us guise under for indeed misunderstanding must be nipped as soon as possible.

The programs fed by the genes are the default factory settings for organisms. But of course, at least we override it by conscious awareness, cultural influences, and the education that we receive.

It’s definitely not a book to be rushed through but devoured slowly. I’d say relish a chapter a day (with possibly a metaphorical lipsmack) and draw connections between the ideas presented. For it is in this diffused state that the mind can do magic.

If there is to be a list of books I’d like to revisit every year (and I’m actively working on making something akin to one), The Selfish Gene will undoubtedly be one of them. A book that will be as immemorial as the subject that it chooses to talk about.

Log

I started around Dec 17 and completed on Dec 28, so around 1.5 weeks.