Friday 20 November 2015
Bus timings
| Bus Name or Number | From ___ to ____ | Timing | Bus available on all days |
| A6 | Nagakudi to Thiruvarur | 06:35:00 | yes |
| A6 | Nagakudi to Thiruvarur | 18:15:00 | yes |
| kutti bus | Neelakudi to Thiruvarur | 08:00:00 | yes |
| kutti | Neelakudi to Thiruvarur | 11:30:00 | most of the days |
| kutti bus | Neelakudi to Thiruvarur | 13:00:00 | |
| kutti | Neelakudi to Thiruvarur | 14:15:00 | most of the days |
| Kutti bus | Neelakudi to Thiruvarur | 16:25:00 | yes |
| PRV | Thiruvarur to Kangalancherry | 07:30:00 | yes |
| Bagavan | Thiruvarur to Kangalancherry | 07:45:00 | yes |
| 466 | Thiruvarur to Kangalancherry | 07:45:00 | yes |
| Marungoor | Thiruvarur to Kangalancherry | 08:00:00 | yes |
| Thittacherry | Thiruvarur to Kangalancherry | 08:10:00 | yes |
| Nagapattinam | Thiruvarur to Kangalancherry | 08:10:00 | yes |
| 401D | Thiruvarur to Kangalancherry | 08:20:00 | almost all the days |
| DLBS | Thiruvarur to Kangalancherry | 08:30:00 | yes |
| 226E | Thiruvarur to Kangalancherry | 08:35:00 | yes |
| Royal | Thiruvarur to Kangalancherry | 08:40:00 | yes |
| 401H | Thiruvarur to Kangalancherry | 08:45:00 | yes |
| kutty | Thiruvarur to Kangalancherry | 09:00:00 | yes |
| 226 | Thiruvarur to Kangalancherry | 09:10:00 | yes |
| A6 | Thiruvarur to Nagakudi | 18:45:00 | yes |
| kuttibus | Thiruvarur to Neelakudi | 18:30:00 | yes |
Wednesday 11 September 2013
BLINK - Making Decisions
From a very interesting discussion with friends the other day, I came to realize that relationships are surprisingly complex. We restricted the talk to just friendship, boyfriend-girlfriend relationships, and marriage (since these were the ones we were most interested in!). Even then, it was complicated enough to produce counter-intuitive conclusions.
The original talk was extremely long, and filled with personal opinions, notions and prejudices. Stating the entire content of it in words would turn out to be a rather tedious task, and would likely not produce any meaningful conclusion. So I’m going to write about a rather interesting theory of relationships that I learnt during the talk, which turned out to be an eye-opener for me, and I’m pretty sure for others who hadn’t heard of it earlier, as well.
Well, if you continue to read, I’m sure you would be perplexed too. So, the theory of relationships that I’m talking about is called the ‘Blink’ theory. I don’t think that’s an official name for it (you won’t find it in Google), but it sounded cool, so we just went for it. So this theory is concerned about the selection of partners in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship (and all further usage of the word ‘relationship’ refers to such relationships, unless stated otherwise).
Before we actually get to the theory, let’s try to get something clear first: Where does one intend to go with a relationship? This is a very deep question, if you actually think about it. Of course, you can get away by saying, “I wanna have fun” or “This boy/girl is hot. I think I’ll stick with him/her until someone else comes along.” The idea of a relationship varies from person to person, and it’d be unrealistic to agree on a common notion. So, at this point, the Blink theory makes an assumption: Every relationship is started with the intent to make it last forever, culminating in marriage. This essentially implies that the theory isn't for people who enter into relationships just for a ‘fling’, or for fun. But of course, it doesn't necessarily imply that thinking in the latter manner is wrong! It’s just that the theory isn’t designed for such people. Now with that out of the way, let’s get to the theory. How do you choose partners for a relationship? The most common answers that I've heard are: “I wanna choose someone who’s similar to me!” or “I want someone who looks hot!”. Some would go as far as to say, “I only care about the person’s character.” And it’s based on such statements, that most relationships function these days: First enter into a relationship, see if each partner has what the other is looking for, and continue if yes, or see how far you’re compatible if no. If both partners are good enough for each other, the relationship will hold, or else it will break.
Well, the blink theory goes well against this algorithm. It states that – “The best partner for a relationship is the one who captures your full attention at first sight, instilling a strong passion in you, without you thinking about any further logical consequences.”Sounds familiar? Yep, it’s equivalent to “love at first sight”, and that’s what is called a ‘blink’! Doesn’t it sound ridiculous? The idea of choosing your partner based on a momentary feeling, as opposed to logic and reasoning? That’s what I thought too, at first. But if you think about it, and analyze the factor that plays the most important role in a relationship, it’s emotions, rather than logic. When you enter into a relationship based on logic, the very same logic prompts you to find reasons to sustain it or end it. It quickly descends into a mechanical arrangement, with emotions taking the backseat, and it almost never works out. But when you get a ‘blink’, you follow purely based on emotions and instinct, the most crucial ingredients for the functioning of a relationship. So what exactly is this ‘blink’? It’s hard to express it in words. It’s this feeling when you see that special person, and you know he/she is the one for you immediately, without you thinking further about it. And how do you realize it? Blink theory guarantees that you’d realize it. There’s no logic behind it (at least, not the one we’re familiar with). It’s purely instinct. A ‘perfect blink’ is when two people have ‘blinks’ towards each other.
And according to blink theory, such pairs are the perfect partners for a relationship. So, in essence, blink theory gives certain counter-intuitive results such as:-
It is futile to go for a guy/girl who doesn't have the ‘blink’ towards you. Any such future relationship with him/her would only be mechanical, if at all it happens. Either a guy/girl has the blink for you, or doesn't. There’s no in-between (though there’s nothing stopping you from considering a ‘half-blink’ or ‘quarter-blink’, should the need arise!) and there’s no such thing as ‘developing a blink later on’. A ‘blink’ is something that occurs spontaneously, not something that one develops over time. Well, that’s blink theory in a nutshell. Of course, it’s much more complex when you consider specific relationship cases, and it doesn't guarantee that every relationship you enter into based on the blink theory, goes well and lasts forever. Sustainment of relationships is not covered by the theory, and it depends on how you handle emotions and priorities in life. So this is a disclaimer you ought to be aware of, about blink theory: It doesn’t guarantee that a perfect blink relationship would last forever. It merely tells that such a relationship has the best chance. And that’s it. Of course, I’m sure most people would consider this some sort of a joke, with all this talk about blinks, emotions and whatnot.
"EDIT: This post was written way back in 2013, and my views on the matter have considerably changed since then." ~ Jobin, Mathematics
Well, if you continue to read, I’m sure you would be perplexed too. So, the theory of relationships that I’m talking about is called the ‘Blink’ theory. I don’t think that’s an official name for it (you won’t find it in Google), but it sounded cool, so we just went for it. So this theory is concerned about the selection of partners in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship (and all further usage of the word ‘relationship’ refers to such relationships, unless stated otherwise).
Before we actually get to the theory, let’s try to get something clear first: Where does one intend to go with a relationship? This is a very deep question, if you actually think about it. Of course, you can get away by saying, “I wanna have fun” or “This boy/girl is hot. I think I’ll stick with him/her until someone else comes along.” The idea of a relationship varies from person to person, and it’d be unrealistic to agree on a common notion. So, at this point, the Blink theory makes an assumption: Every relationship is started with the intent to make it last forever, culminating in marriage. This essentially implies that the theory isn't for people who enter into relationships just for a ‘fling’, or for fun. But of course, it doesn't necessarily imply that thinking in the latter manner is wrong! It’s just that the theory isn’t designed for such people. Now with that out of the way, let’s get to the theory. How do you choose partners for a relationship? The most common answers that I've heard are: “I wanna choose someone who’s similar to me!” or “I want someone who looks hot!”. Some would go as far as to say, “I only care about the person’s character.” And it’s based on such statements, that most relationships function these days: First enter into a relationship, see if each partner has what the other is looking for, and continue if yes, or see how far you’re compatible if no. If both partners are good enough for each other, the relationship will hold, or else it will break.
Well, the blink theory goes well against this algorithm. It states that – “The best partner for a relationship is the one who captures your full attention at first sight, instilling a strong passion in you, without you thinking about any further logical consequences.”Sounds familiar? Yep, it’s equivalent to “love at first sight”, and that’s what is called a ‘blink’! Doesn’t it sound ridiculous? The idea of choosing your partner based on a momentary feeling, as opposed to logic and reasoning? That’s what I thought too, at first. But if you think about it, and analyze the factor that plays the most important role in a relationship, it’s emotions, rather than logic. When you enter into a relationship based on logic, the very same logic prompts you to find reasons to sustain it or end it. It quickly descends into a mechanical arrangement, with emotions taking the backseat, and it almost never works out. But when you get a ‘blink’, you follow purely based on emotions and instinct, the most crucial ingredients for the functioning of a relationship. So what exactly is this ‘blink’? It’s hard to express it in words. It’s this feeling when you see that special person, and you know he/she is the one for you immediately, without you thinking further about it. And how do you realize it? Blink theory guarantees that you’d realize it. There’s no logic behind it (at least, not the one we’re familiar with). It’s purely instinct. A ‘perfect blink’ is when two people have ‘blinks’ towards each other.
And according to blink theory, such pairs are the perfect partners for a relationship. So, in essence, blink theory gives certain counter-intuitive results such as:-
It is futile to go for a guy/girl who doesn't have the ‘blink’ towards you. Any such future relationship with him/her would only be mechanical, if at all it happens. Either a guy/girl has the blink for you, or doesn't. There’s no in-between (though there’s nothing stopping you from considering a ‘half-blink’ or ‘quarter-blink’, should the need arise!) and there’s no such thing as ‘developing a blink later on’. A ‘blink’ is something that occurs spontaneously, not something that one develops over time. Well, that’s blink theory in a nutshell. Of course, it’s much more complex when you consider specific relationship cases, and it doesn't guarantee that every relationship you enter into based on the blink theory, goes well and lasts forever. Sustainment of relationships is not covered by the theory, and it depends on how you handle emotions and priorities in life. So this is a disclaimer you ought to be aware of, about blink theory: It doesn’t guarantee that a perfect blink relationship would last forever. It merely tells that such a relationship has the best chance. And that’s it. Of course, I’m sure most people would consider this some sort of a joke, with all this talk about blinks, emotions and whatnot.
"EDIT: This post was written way back in 2013, and my views on the matter have considerably changed since then." ~ Jobin, Mathematics
Monday 9 September 2013
FREEDOM
Since the 67th Independence Day was looming nearby, this seemed like the most natural thing to talk about “Freedom”.
Since we liked to keep discussions logical, we started by trying to define Freedom, rather than just jump into it blindly.
Our initial attempts to define this seemingly innocent word, turned out to be surprisingly imprecise. The first definition of freedom that came into scrutiny was – “The ability of being able to do anything out of free will.” Well, at first look, this definition looks innocuous enough, and it goes well with the conventional view of freedom as well. But now, the question arises – “So you do something out of free will. Cool. But every action you do arises out of some desire, and your desires come from external stimuli. So doesn't that mean you’re freedom is dependent on external stimuli?”.
There’s no logical loophole here; this definition can lead to no other conclusion. One might ask, “Yeah, my freedom is dependent on external stimuli. So what’s the big deal?” Well, since we’re all trying to have a logical discussion here, devoid of personal opinions and prejudices, congrats, you've just sabotaged the whole point of it, by trying to define Freedom in a relative manner, which may be differently perceived based on different external stimuli!
From that point onward, it was a roller-coaster ride, each of us trying to define Freedom in an absolute manner. It didn't go as well we had expected it to; the seemingly different definitions that we all came up with were all space-dependent, time-dependent, or person-dependent. In short, they were all variants of the very same definition that we had come up with earlier. They were all relative, and nope, none of us could live with that. So we tried to go about it in the opposite manner. We tried to develop a definition from the very characteristics of freedom that we expect in a society. Since all humans are encompassed by the society, any definition that we come up with in this manner would have to be absolute. Well, there is a serious caveat here of course; the way in which one interprets the society is subject to change from person to person, and in addition to that, we do not know of any other model of society apart from the current one, so in a way, this definition would also have to be relative; society-dependent.
But this didn't bother us much, since the society we know is not going to change anytime in the near future. So we decided to go ahead anyway, keeping this in mind. In a society, you have rules, and being part of the society, you are expected to follow them. So normally, one doesn't go against the society for fear of the rules, and the consequences that follow. So here comes a very interesting, though subtle point; it is fear that actually restricts you from doing actions. Once you think in that direction, things become clear with amazing clarity. The reason why a child dares to do just about anything, and why you are scared of sleeping in classes; fear. And where does this fear come from? Rules. Punishment. In short, information. And the ones who are in direct control of such information are the ones in power, the ones who are truly fearless. And now, we have a clear picture of what’s actually going on (in the current society at least!); the society controls the flow of information (rules), and in fear of that (or opposed to such fear), we perform actions. So where does freedom come in all of this? Well, think of this way: you've been long told that you have various “freedoms” in society. When you actually think about it, every such freedom comes with a set of rules which you are expected to follow, failure of which results in punishment. So, the “freedom” which you experience is a residue of fear, a pseudo-freedom. It’s an illusion making it seem as if you’re in control of your actions, whereas in reality, someone else is pulling the threads.
So what exactly is absolute freedom? We came up with an interesting way of defining it-“It is the acceptance of the working of the society, and still perform actions without fear.” When you’re aware of the rules in the society, and still are not perturbed by the fear of them, you are able to perform actions out of your own free will, as in the first definition (but in this case, we’ve made it absolute), and you’ve attained freedom. And then comes a crucial question-“Why do you require such freedom?” At first look, this question seems innocent enough. But every single attempt to answer it seemed to be futile. One doesn’t require freedom for survival; in fact, one has a better chance of survival without freedom, as there is fear preventing one from doing erratic actions. Similarly, freedom isn’t required for comfort. One is much more comfortable without freedom, or to be more accurate, with pseudo-freedom, since one knows the rules of the society, thereby knowing how to be on good terms with it. None of us could actually come up with a reason for freedom. We reached an impasse, and had to admit that none of us knew what absolute freedom is for. And that’s the conclusion we came to. Well, we also discussed minor topics that came in the way, like independence. On discussion, we realized that independence is an even superior concept to freedom, being not dependent on anyone at all. Ironically, we celebrate Independence Day annually, though we haven’t attained it in the literal sense. Sure, we are “independent” of the British. But we have rocking awesome replacements who are even better than the British at their own game. And we are dependent on other countries for innumerable stuff, just as many countries are dependent on us for other stuff. So, no country, or any person for that matter can ever be independent. At least, not in the current timeline that we live in.
Our initial attempts to define this seemingly innocent word, turned out to be surprisingly imprecise. The first definition of freedom that came into scrutiny was – “The ability of being able to do anything out of free will.” Well, at first look, this definition looks innocuous enough, and it goes well with the conventional view of freedom as well. But now, the question arises – “So you do something out of free will. Cool. But every action you do arises out of some desire, and your desires come from external stimuli. So doesn't that mean you’re freedom is dependent on external stimuli?”.
There’s no logical loophole here; this definition can lead to no other conclusion. One might ask, “Yeah, my freedom is dependent on external stimuli. So what’s the big deal?” Well, since we’re all trying to have a logical discussion here, devoid of personal opinions and prejudices, congrats, you've just sabotaged the whole point of it, by trying to define Freedom in a relative manner, which may be differently perceived based on different external stimuli!
From that point onward, it was a roller-coaster ride, each of us trying to define Freedom in an absolute manner. It didn't go as well we had expected it to; the seemingly different definitions that we all came up with were all space-dependent, time-dependent, or person-dependent. In short, they were all variants of the very same definition that we had come up with earlier. They were all relative, and nope, none of us could live with that. So we tried to go about it in the opposite manner. We tried to develop a definition from the very characteristics of freedom that we expect in a society. Since all humans are encompassed by the society, any definition that we come up with in this manner would have to be absolute. Well, there is a serious caveat here of course; the way in which one interprets the society is subject to change from person to person, and in addition to that, we do not know of any other model of society apart from the current one, so in a way, this definition would also have to be relative; society-dependent.
But this didn't bother us much, since the society we know is not going to change anytime in the near future. So we decided to go ahead anyway, keeping this in mind. In a society, you have rules, and being part of the society, you are expected to follow them. So normally, one doesn't go against the society for fear of the rules, and the consequences that follow. So here comes a very interesting, though subtle point; it is fear that actually restricts you from doing actions. Once you think in that direction, things become clear with amazing clarity. The reason why a child dares to do just about anything, and why you are scared of sleeping in classes; fear. And where does this fear come from? Rules. Punishment. In short, information. And the ones who are in direct control of such information are the ones in power, the ones who are truly fearless. And now, we have a clear picture of what’s actually going on (in the current society at least!); the society controls the flow of information (rules), and in fear of that (or opposed to such fear), we perform actions. So where does freedom come in all of this? Well, think of this way: you've been long told that you have various “freedoms” in society. When you actually think about it, every such freedom comes with a set of rules which you are expected to follow, failure of which results in punishment. So, the “freedom” which you experience is a residue of fear, a pseudo-freedom. It’s an illusion making it seem as if you’re in control of your actions, whereas in reality, someone else is pulling the threads.
So what exactly is absolute freedom? We came up with an interesting way of defining it-“It is the acceptance of the working of the society, and still perform actions without fear.” When you’re aware of the rules in the society, and still are not perturbed by the fear of them, you are able to perform actions out of your own free will, as in the first definition (but in this case, we’ve made it absolute), and you’ve attained freedom. And then comes a crucial question-“Why do you require such freedom?” At first look, this question seems innocent enough. But every single attempt to answer it seemed to be futile. One doesn’t require freedom for survival; in fact, one has a better chance of survival without freedom, as there is fear preventing one from doing erratic actions. Similarly, freedom isn’t required for comfort. One is much more comfortable without freedom, or to be more accurate, with pseudo-freedom, since one knows the rules of the society, thereby knowing how to be on good terms with it. None of us could actually come up with a reason for freedom. We reached an impasse, and had to admit that none of us knew what absolute freedom is for. And that’s the conclusion we came to. Well, we also discussed minor topics that came in the way, like independence. On discussion, we realized that independence is an even superior concept to freedom, being not dependent on anyone at all. Ironically, we celebrate Independence Day annually, though we haven’t attained it in the literal sense. Sure, we are “independent” of the British. But we have rocking awesome replacements who are even better than the British at their own game. And we are dependent on other countries for innumerable stuff, just as many countries are dependent on us for other stuff. So, no country, or any person for that matter can ever be independent. At least, not in the current timeline that we live in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)