knowledge at work - 27th july

This article has been driven by strong emotions. However the author has tried to substantiate and rationalise her stand using references from politics and history. But it is clear that her perception has been blinded by her feminist believes. She is right to a certain extent about the burqa but we must understand the anti-religious fanaticism is equally dangerous as religious fanaticism. This is where the false dilemma arises. Here the author is only considering two options, either wear the burqa or ban it. She doesn’t realise that there might be some women out there who actually feel more comfortable wearing it. What a moderate argument would be to leave it on personal choice rather imposing either of the two.
The author has only states what she thinks is right. The article begins like this: “I am a Muslim, I am a feminist and I detest the full-body veil, known as a niqab or burqa” Very evidently through her language we see that this is her perceptio. No where does she use words like we Muslim Women or us, she is solely speaking for herself. She has adopted Inductive reasoning here. She feels like this, she has had bad experiences in the past, she has felt oppressed and has seen a few other women in that situation and thus generalises that this is what is correct. The tendency to make generalisations is further exacerbated by a phenomenon known as conformation bias. This suggests that people only tend to remember evidences that that support their believes. For Example in the article clearly states that eventhough she usually disagrees with Sarkozy on most issues she agrees with his views on the burqa. Here she is appropriating to her benefit. This is something that has been done from generations together. It is through the means of appropriation that colonisers justified their stand in colonial countries. Be it in India, Africa, South East Asia and Latin America. And this is not limited to politics it is also very widespread in science. Watson and Crick were to Biologists two biologist who won the Nobel Prize to develop the double helix DNA model. They very blatantly took all the credit and mentioned their procedure. However they chose not to mention about their assistant Roselyn Franklin and her achievements that were actually very pivotal to develop the model. They just presented the parts that suited them.
As I said earlier both religious fanaticism and anti religious fanaticism are dangerous. An example of anti religious fanaticism is Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He is undoubltly a revolutionary leader that brought about incredible amount of change in Turkey but he became an anti religious fanatic. Beginning in the fall of 1925, Mustafa Kemal encouraged the Turks to wear modern European attire. He was determined to force the abandonment of the sartorial traditions of the Middle East and finalize a series of dress reforms. The Hat Law introduced the use of Western style hats instead of the fez. Mustafa Kemal first made the hat compulsory to civil servants and then to the general public. The last part of reform on dress emphasized the need to wear modern suits instead of antiquated religion-based clothing such as the veil and turban. It is said that once one of his civil servants wore the fez and was beaten unto death. Is this ethical? Is such fanaticism sustainable? Isn’t this against human rights which give the right to all individuals to practice any religion of their choice peacefully? If yes then how can we circum ourselves to such injustice? The opposite of this is religious fanaticism what the Taliban preached. It believed in extreme religious fanaticism. While the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan, it became notorious internationally for their treatment of women. Their stated aim was to create "secure environments where the chasteness and dignity of women may once again be sacrosanct," reportedly based on beliefs about living in a burqa. Women were forced to wear it in public, because, according to a Taliban spokesman, "the face of a woman is a source of corruption" for men not related to them. They were not allowed to work. They were not allowed to be educated after the age of eight, and until then were permitted only to study the Quran. The Taliban allowed and in some cases encouraged marriage for girls under the age of 16. Thus here we see two extreme cases. Both against basic Human rights. What we need today is modertion. What distinguishes us from animals is our free will that we should be empowered to practice. Wearing the burqa should be a personal choice, if a woman feels comfortable she wears it, if she feels it masks her identity then she should have the choice to abandon it.
The author has taken up a very extremist stand and is very zealous about this issue however she must not impose her perception on others. She must think this over rationally as this is a very sentimental topic. The burqa has been a Muslim traditions since years, to talk so disrespectfully could lead to numerous controversies.

THE ARTICLE
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/opinion/03iht-edeltahawy.html

Op-Ed Contributor
Ban the Burqa
By MONA ELTAHAWY
Published: July 2, 2009
NEW YORK — I am a Muslim, I am a feminist and I detest the full-body veil, known as a niqab or burqa. It erases women from society and has nothing to do with Islam but everything to do with the hatred for women at the heart of the extremist ideology that preaches it.
We must not sacrifice women at the altar of political correctness or in the name of fighting a growingly powerful right wing that Muslims face in countries where they live as a minority.
As disagreeable as I often find French President Nicolas Sarkozy, he was right when he said recently, “The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory.” It should not be welcome anywhere, I would add.
Yet his words have inspired attempts to defend the indefensible — the erasure of women.
Some have argued that Sarkozy’s right-leaning, anti-Muslim bias was behind his opposition to the burqa. But I would remind them of comments in 2006 by the then-British House of Commons leader Jack Straw, who said the burqa prevents communication. He was right, and he was hardly a right-winger — and yet he too was attacked for daring to speak out against the burqa.
Soad Saleh, a professor of Islamic law and former dean of the women’s faculty of Islamic studies at Al-Azhar University — hardly a liberal, said the burqa had nothing to do with Islam. It was but an old Bedouin tradition.
It is sad to see a strange ambivalence toward the burqa from many of my fellow Muslims and others who claim to support us. They will take on everything — the right wing, Islamophobia, Mr. Straw, Mr. Sarkozy — rather than come out and plainly state that the burqa is an affront to Muslim women.
I blame such reluctance on the success of the ultra-conservative Salafi ideology — practiced most famously in Saudi Arabia — in leaving its imprimatur on Islam globally by persuading too many Muslims that it is the purest and highest form of our faith.
It’s one thing to argue about the burqa in a country like Saudi Arabia — where I lived for six years and where women are treated like children — but it is utterly dispiriting to have those same arguments in a country where women’s rights have long been enshrined. When I first saw a woman in a burqa in Copenhagen I was horrified.
I wore a headscarf for nine years. An argument I had on the Cairo subway with a woman who wore a burqa helped seal for good my refusal to defend it. Dressed in black from head to toe, the woman asked me why I did not wear the burqa. I pointed to my headscarf and asked her “Is this not enough?”
“If you wanted a piece of candy, would you choose an unwrapped piece or one that came in a wrapper?” she asked.
“I am not candy,” I answered. “Women are not candy.”
I have since heard arguments made for the burqa in which the woman is portrayed as a diamond ring or a precious stone that needs to be hidden to prove her “worth.” Unless we challenge it, the burqa — and by extension the erasure of women — becomes the pinnacle of piety.
It is not about comparing burqas to bikinis, as some claim. I used to compare my headscarf to a miniskirt, the two being essentially two sides to the same coin of a woman’s body. The burqa is something else altogether: A woman who wears it is erased.
A bizarre political correctness has tied the tongues of those who would normally rally to women’s rights. One blogger, a woman, lamented that “Sarkozy’s anti-burqa stance deprives women of identity.” It’s precisely the opposite: It’s the burqa that deprives a woman of identity.
Why do women in Muslim-minority communities wear the burqa? Sarkozy touched on one reason when he admitted his country’s integration model wasn’t working any more because it doesn’t give immigrants and their French-born children a fair chance.
But the Muslim community must ask itself the same question: Why the silence as some of our women fade into black either as a form of identity politics, a protest against the state or out of acquiescence to Salafism?
As a Muslim woman and a feminist I would ban the burqa.
Mona Eltahawy is an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues.

summer knowledge and work-2

Article: Mumbai Mirror Friday, June 12, 2009 ; page 26
Advertisement on Pretti Slim clinic

Description: faces shown before and after laser hair treatment., Also information about treatments offered by Pretti Slim like slimming and face lifting.


Everytime I see an article like this contempt and disgust is all that I perceive. However this is primarily not directed at the people who take such treatments, but at the advertisers. To a vulnerable person, facing these disorders this may seem as the most appropriate break through. However often lured by these advertisements they loose their reason. They plunge in for the treatments without looking at its side effects and long term consequences. This impulsiveness has been imbedded in human nature since ancient times. Beauty has always lured men to their demise.
The forbidden fruit is always the sweetest. Man always wants what is not meant for him. This fact dates back to the origin of mankind as stated in the sacred bible. Adam and Eve were dwellers in heaven. They were aware of the forbidden apple and its curse. However Adam’s naïve and insatiate soul of a youth could not conform to the rules. Even though he knew he would face horrible consequences he still went on to eat the forbidden apple. Thus Adam and Eve were banished from heaven and exiled to earth to lead the life of mortals. The reddest apple is the deadliest. Youth, beauty and the desire to look good is like that red apple that is hypnotising the youth and adult population alike.
The first advertisement was about face lifting. The woman to me didn’t look much happier after the treatment, so then what was the point. I could also do the same thing on Photoshop, what is the guarantee of the authenticity of this picture which I genuinely feel is not too attractive. However some old woman may be admiring this picture. Here arises the disparity of perception. Perceptions differ and emotions play a major role in it. Hope, fear, desire and anxiety all influence perception. I would look at the situation in a more objective and rational way. I would question the procedure and doubt the results. On the other hand a vulnerable person may give in. the vulnerable person would want to believe that what he or she sees is true. I would to negate it. Some people say seeing is believing but I think ‘believing is seeing’ since our beliefs and expectations affect the way we see things. In the nineteenth century some scientists speculated that an undiscovered planet- which they called Vulcan- existed between Mercury and the sun. With this belief in mind some astronomers claimed to have seen Vulcan. However the fact was that Vulcan never existed. Thus the question arises does this picture actually depict the truth?
Also why are we so bent upon on changing nature? Aging is a natural process; it is a part of human evolution why are we changing it. It is this interference with nature that forces nature to revert. Man interfered with the forces of nature. He manipulated his environment and hampered natural cycles. This gave rise to global warming, acid rain and the green house effect. These effects were not considered when man presented the rosy pictures of urbanisation with comfortable lifestyles of the developed world. Even in this advertisement the final rosy picture is presented and the initial state but the process which is the traumatising part is not presented. The pain, discomfort, swelling, blistering and pigmentation has boldly been ignored in the laser treatment advert. In a worst case laser can also lead to skin cancers. However never will a person inform you about these side effects other wise their product will not sell.
King Canute the great Viking ruler once was strolling by the sea shore with his courtiers. In his early years as a ruler looted much and plundered much more. He was very proud of his achievements. He enjoyed flattery and preferred to be surrounded by sycophants. However as he wizened over the years he understood the true essence of survival and futility of baseless desires. That is why he gave up looting and plundering and devoted his life to the well being of mankind. This advertisement is promoting something that will last for few months or maybe years but its long term consequences are deathly. Aging is a natural process, hormonal changes is an internal disorder. These superficial treatments are not going to change the way the body is destined to function.
Some may provide counter arguments saying that everyone has the right to look good. That is true, this is a personal choice. However I would just urge people to look at the treatment in a rational way, weigh the pros and corns and make informed decisions.

summer holidays- knowledge @ work 1

Marley and me

 

This movie goes beyond the story of a dog. It beautifully displays an array of emotions ranging from happiness, love, hope, anxiety, anguish and pain. However what is truly amazing about this movie is that it goes beyond just human emotions. We as viewers can relate to and perceive the emotions the dog ‘Marley’ is going through. Its little gestures like wagging its tail or running round his master convey so much. Here we see that words are no the only form of expression. Infact at many instances in the movie words betray humans and fail to show there true emotions but the gestures seem to be most loyal and intrinsic.

The protagonist decides to buy Marley as a gift for his wife because he wants someone that will call him master. This is a human need. Everyone wants to be in control. It gives satisfaction to feel in authoritative. This may seem irrational but it is a need. This is a very small scale representation but on a large scale it is this thirst of power and desire to be in control that gives birth to leaders and dictators. In the book ‘One Hundred Years of Solitude’ by Garcia Marquez after raging several wars the liberal leader Colonel Arcadio Buendia finally comes to the conclusion that he is only fighting for power.

Dogs are said to be man’s best friend. In this movie this cliché is very obvious. Marley shares an intense bond with his masters whether it is the children or the adults. Even the family depends upon Marley. An early Indian revolutionary in the Indian freedom struggle Rani of Jhansi was very dependent on her horse. He was loyal to her and she rode on him for every battle. He was trained and understood the tactics of his master. They had developed a mutual understanding and could feel and relate to each others ideas. The Rani carried her child on her back when she fought her last battles. Thus her horse kept good care of the child too. Once in the battle field her horse was gravely injured. Well this was the last battle of her life. Her new horse could not coordinate actions and act with the same vigilance. Thus the Rani lost her life on the battle field. In this movie all the protagonists are emotionally dependent on Marley, specially the husband. Every time he feels low he finds recluse in Marley’s company. At such instances the very violent dog becomes docile as he reconciles with his masters agony and comforts him.

Intuition plays an important role in the movie. They chose to purchase Marley out of all the dogs as an instant bond was forged. They know that this is the best fit dog for them. Even when Marley falls ill they know he will be fine the first time but not the second time. And all this is comes true.

Thus this movie really moves the viewers. In the last few scenes you cannot help but shed a tear. Even though you know this is just a movie, a fantasy and there is no reality in it your emotion takes over your reason and you relate to the agony and end up being completely being swayed.

little prince- chapter 1

In this chapter the author beautifully explores the psychology of a young boy. I chose this chapter because I could empathise with the boy. We see the clash between the perception of the child and adults. Hidden behind the playfulness of the tone is a deep message. We see how talent is shunned down. Our society has certain stereotypes which one is expected to conform to. Innovation is regarded as ‘madness’ and ignorance as ‘bliss’.
The picture of the boa has great significance. The boa gulps down his prey without chewing it and then hibernates to digest it. This arouses great curiosity in the mind of the child. On a symbolic level the boa could represent the process of colonisation. Let’s take the process of Indian colonisation by the British. The British entered India as traders in the form of the East India Company. Through their trade practices they engulfed many regions of the country. However they put up a deceitful front. The prey, the Indians were completely oblivious of this until they were engulfed. Also the entire process was gradual and hushed. Slowly the company devoured the lower stratus of the society. The higher classes were still ignorant. It was only after they took over the entire country did they begin devouring it. Thus the process was slow and secretive but it did finely devour it to every last morsel.
The child is naïve and innocent but in this chapter he is displayed as the true seeker of knowledge. The adults have biases as to what is right and what is wrong. They do not want to look out of the box. The child tries to look beyond but he is shunned down. We don’t realise that these adults have a huge impact on the child’s life. They are the source of secondary knowledge for the child. The child is expected to learn from them. If they institutions limit a child’s scope rather then encouraging it then the child will be deprived for life. as in this book the child says that he decided to give up drawing after receiving no appreciation. We al require appreciation and encouragement. It gives us joy and pride in our work. However discouragement can really lower spirits.
Our society is like a closed system, anyone who is looks beyond it is pilled down. This has been the case for times immemorial. Pythagoras and Aristotle were considered as ‘over reachers’ and ‘dreamers’ when they proposed that the earth was round. Only a few inrellectual lot believed them and the others shunned them down. It has actually been known that the Earth was round since the time of the ancient Greeks. It was Pythagoras who first proposed that the Earth was round sometime around 500 B.C. As I recall, he based his idea on the fact that he showed the Moon must be round by observing the shape of the terminator (the line between the part of the Moon in light and the part of the Moon in the dark) as it moved through its orbital cycle. Pythagoras reasoned that if the Moon was round, then the Earth must be round as well. Around 350 BC, the great Aristotle declared that the Earth was a sphere (based on observations he made about which constellations you could see in the sky as you travelled further and further away from the equator) and during the next hundred years or so, Aristarchus and Eratosthenes actually measured the size of the Earth! However these reasons were given a deaf ear by the society. I guess it is our preconceived notions that hinder our progress. If we had revered and acknowledged the work of these men at the right time human civilisation would be even more developed.
Parents or guardians shunning down children can be the most demoralising thing ever. Eklavya’s story from Indian mythology. He was not blue blooded. He had a deep desire to learn archery from the royal teacher. He was rebuked and looked down upon by the saint. The saint rejected him and told him that he would never learn archery as it is the game of the royalty. Even though Eklavya was very rejected he still revered the teacher and learnt archery al by himself. He mastered the art single handedly without any guidance. However the saint could not reconcile with the fact that he was better then his favoured disciple Arjun (a descendent of the royal family). In order to maintain the supremacy of his disciple he asked Eklavya to give up this thumb. Thus we see that how the saint misjudged Eklavya’s potential. The stereotype that only the royal blood can learn the art of archery prevented him to appreciate talent. At the end of it all the world lost a brilliant archer.
Thus we need to look beyond our pre conceived notions. We need to appreciate and encourage. Two words of appreciation can go a long way. I hope that readers recognise the underlying pleas of the author. Under all the smiles and affability, humour and innocence lie the grey areas of human existence that we conveniently chose to ignore.

reflection - Answers to questions about inuition

Intuition is a strong gut feeling of the happening of an event that is proven right. It is subjective and is a strong assertion in the mind of an individual in the happening of an event.
What is obvious to you may not be obvious to me. We all have different perceptions and parameters of judgement. Let’s take the example of the Brutus and Cassius in the play Julius Caesar. Cassius had a strong gut feeling that the army should stay in their positions and wait for the enemies to attack. He justified his intuition by trying to analyse the psychology of his opponents. His intuition seemed to be proving right and very obvious however Brutus failed to understand it. He advocated the army to descend to Philippines and launch the attack. They both belonged to the same army; Cassius’s predictions were seemingly true. His predictions of the warring of the were already proven right thus his intuition was already half justified beyond doubt, yet Brutus’s impaired judgement came in the way of the right decision.
‘Intuitively obvious’, this phrase startles me. Are we measuring the degree to which we believe in the happening of an event? It is difficult to quantify it, however when the intuition persists for long and maybe they have been proven right in the past then it may be safe to consider it. However we cannot form our beliefs because something is ‘intuitively obvious’. Intuitions are more than often governed by emotions and perceptions. However an intuition should be proven right to qualify it as a belief. For example the Indian prime minister in the 1990’s Mr Vajpayee had a strong gut feeling that he assumed to be’ intuitively obvious’ that the Pakistanis will not attack India. Despite the recurring threats and intelligence information he did not adequately prepare the defence of the country. However he was proven wrong, Pakistan attacked India and the Kargil war took place. Thus we see that his gut feeling was proven wrong. Thus intuitions are often proven wrong and one must not become laid back and base his/her actions on the basis of something that is intuitively obvious.
To make a generalisation that more knowledgeable or successful people would have better intuitions is a bias but I guess that is how human mentality functions. Stock trading is often based on intuitions. The data, stocks availability, future predictions are often based on intuitions. Some broker may just say that “I think the market will fall next summer’ without any justification. Thus if I have to buy shares I will go to amore successful broker rather than an unsuccessful one. Even if the unsuccessful lawyer gives me concrete reasons as to how and why the share price would change and the successful lawyer just says that he feels that this is what will happen I will trust him. This is so because he has become so successful after taking these calculated risks. I assume that he knows how to distinguish when something is intuitively obvious and when it is just a gut feeling.
Thus intuitions are subjective. They are crucial in the development of man. Every scientific discovery first starts with an intuition. However an intuition has to be proven right. Thus we must learn know how to distinguish between gut feelings and intuitions and not reach conclusions without formal proof.

knowledge @ work- 5

Fear! This is a strong emotion that compels men to react in different ways. However fear is something very subjective. What is fearful to you may seem a thrill to me. The fear of the unknown has always driven men.
The forbidden fruit is always the sweetest. This fact dates back to the origin of mankind as stated in the sacred bible. Adam and Eve were dwellers in heaven. They were aware of the forbidden apple and its curse. However Adam’s naïve and insatiate soul of a youth could not conform to the rules. Even though he knew he would face horrible consequences he still went on to eat the forbidden apple. Thus Adam and Eve were banished from heaven and exiled to earth to lead the life of mortals. This is the case of the world’s youth. Smoking, drinking and drugs, everyone knows it is bad. No one is oblivious of its harmful impacts on health. However the thrill generated to break the law is what drives them. I would like to link this news article to another breaking news that took place in the year 2008. Another juvenile from Bombay Scottish School in Mumbai, India was surfing the net. Out of all the sources of entertainment his friends decided to play a game which taught you ways to kill yourself. This was an online game which gave detailed descriptions as to how one can kill himself. there were clear warnings as to how dangerous the game would be but the boy was lured. He wanted to ‘try it himself’ to overcome the ‘unknown’. These are the key factors that drive people. He played the game and ended up losing his life. Thus we see how we consciously prepare our own undoing.
Concluding I would not call avoiding smoking fear. Choosing not to smoke or drink is a rational decision taken when a youth develops the ability to over power his insecure, insatiate emotions and do the best for himself. And also I am not advocating baning smoking or drinking. What I want to say is that one must learn how to rationally distinguish between right and wrong and learn one’s limits. However this is a task few can accomplish. Attractions are always there. People may say that as knowers we should try things ourselves to know if it is right or wrong. Alcohol is not bad for responsible drinker but excessive consumptions is harmful and this is a belief beyond reasonable doubt. There are abundant scientific facts to prove this but they are often overlooked. Sometimes it takes more courage and self control to avenge this luring and make a rational choice .

reflection- the 'emotional trap' or the 'trapped emotions' ????

We call ourselves the superior race. Our rationale is what distinguishes us from the brute. But are we really the ‘knowers’ the ‘thinkers’. Time and again our actions betray the logical and rational perspective. We have evolved and have acquired the power to reason, however the primitive, irrational, emotional and impulsive character is still deep imbedded in our system. If not in deliberative thinking, it is deep rooted in our stream of consciousness. This stream often deviates us from the archetypal ‘intellectual’ and we behave like ‘emotional fools’. When a man steps on a snake it stings him. The snake does not bother to verify that whether the action was intentional or a mere mistake. It is an external stimulus that is perceived as a threat. It creates fear and induces the snake to react. Same is the case with men. If we see a dark bearded Muslim man, in a grim alley, walking with a packet hidden under his crouch in most cases he would appear suspicious. People would abandon the place he strides on. No one would think that may be the packet under his crouch has medicines that he is protecting from the rain, or he’s wearing the rugged black rag because he can afford no better.
We all have biases driven solely by emotions. Lets take the example of Dr Lynd in the book ‘A Grain of Wheat’ by Ngugi Wa Thiongo. She was assaulted by her houseboy, Koina; during the Mau- Mau movement. The houseboy had betrayed her trust. He even killed the her dog, whom he had shared a strong bond with. The ferocious expression on Koina’s face was imprinted in Lynd’s mind. It generated fear, distrust and hatred in her. She began to believe that all Africans are murderous, blood thirsty traitors. Many years later when she sees Karanja, a labourer, holding a stoine at her dog she fires him. She does not bother to investigate as to what had actually happened. She did not believe a word that Karanja said. The truth was that the her dog had chased Karanja. As means of self preservation he held a stone at him. However doctor Lynd was blinded from the truth. She did not believe him because he was an African. Her fallacious reasoning was that since all the Africans are rutheless, murderous people not worthy of trust and since Karanja was an African he is a traitor to. She completely disregarded the fact that Karanja had devoted his life in the service of the British. She rebuked him publically and expressed her views vehemently with great agony and rancour to Thompson a fellow colleague.
Thus this is a classic example were powerful emotions override our rational. They superimpose on all other ways of knowing and close doors to any alternative argument. We form bias perceptions which lead to fallacious reasoning. These feelings get imbedded in our nature. They are like inflammable hydrogen that can create fire with no sparks. Thus it when we learn how tame these emotions can we call ourselves ‘the superior race’.