Archive | February, 2011

Keep it simple stupid

23 Feb

I recently had a bet with someone that I can prove I’m the best kisser in the world.

Now as soon as one says one runs into practical problem of logistics, research methodology, number of participants, the universe, credibility, etc. Because the accurate methodology would be everyone kissing everyone and then rating each other to finally reach the conclusion.

But history is witness and we privy to this untenable reality that everyone kissing everyone is a problem, especially on the lips, some like to kiss the butt, some like their boots to be kissed, some like their boots to kiss someone’s butt and so and so forth.

A practical conclusion and demonstration remains a distant dream.

Now there is a possible solution that is we can work with the assumption that everyone has kissed and knows a good kiss, I go and kiss every girl, she rates me better or worse than kiss or kisses she has had in the past. I am definitely a willing respondent and participant but the result will still be inconclusive and inaccurate. Imagine all women say I am a better kisser and just one woman say I am not as good as her lover and that lover has kissed only that woman, I am doomed. Because then that man has to kiss all the women so that it can be established. So by sheer complexity of various permutations and combinations and limitations of time I need to find a different approach to win the bet.

See get me clear here, there is no doubt in the veracity of my claim, and it technically is above any suspicion or counter claim, it just that it requires a mathematical proof.

It’s like saying why is one 1 and not two.

So you very patiently explain to the person, the theory, philosophy and the concept of unit, symbolism, analogy, material, spiritual, metaphysical and through other tools to give an understanding and quell all misgivings.

I need a similar tool.

Sam, dam, dand, bhed.

There is nothing that cannot be proved mathematically.

Let’s start from the beginning again.

There are two possibilities:-

Possibility 1: I am the best kisser in the world

Possibility 2: I am not the best kisser in the world.

We have seen that proving possibility one is tad bit difficult, we would now try to attempt finding out about the other possibility and whether we can prove that to be true or false.

I like it.

This seems to be a more interesting terrain.

To digress from the topic for a short while, I am sure everyone remembers the story of Frog in the well. The moral if you recollect was that life is all about experiences, a limited experience limits you to judge everything. Its only if and only if you have led a rich life, have spread your wings to fly far and wide you will be able to fathom an understanding, though it always will be miniscule in the grand scheme of the universe, point being only that person will be a better judge.

And we are not even into acquired tastes right now.

Wasabi sauce.

Who has liked it the first time they have tried.

Know what, life actually is very confusing.

Imagine a person, who has read a single book, can that person make a judgment about books?
And sometimes a person attains legend by a single act, take Mario Puzo, can you make a complete judgment about him unless you have read Godfather?

And in some cases it’s the reverse that is true, you have watched, experienced, tasted, read one great thing and not seen the crappy balance body of work, will your judgment be accurate with evaluating that act from the filter of fluke, an accident?

You must be thinking, why are we talking about all this and didn’t he say it will be short?

We will immediately get back to our initial quest.

Since assumption 1 is difficult to prove, we will come to assumption 2, that I am not the best kisser. That by virtue of definition must be judged by others. So the question comes who can judge me? That small detour was to define the properties and characteristics of the judge.

I at this point, in my defense, would like to bring to your notice another intrinsic aspect of the locking of lips.

It is not a solitary activity, it is a group activity, in the sense two parties are involved at the same time.

The quality of the act in a collective activity is judged by the mean of the performance of both the players.

Ah, I can see you need another analogy.

Sania Nehwal is a great badminton player. Now we all know that, it will make it easier for you to understand the point.

Sania Nehwal claims that I am the best badminton player or keeping the ranking in mind, she says I am second best player in the world, or in other words a very good badminton player, we all would agree.


Because we have seen her demonstrate that, we know she has won championships and other such proof points.

Now imagine no one knew of this fact and she made the claim (like I have done with the kiss, keep our objectives in mind as you read), she will be asked to prove it.

Now imagine no one else knows how to play badminton and she plays with such players, she would look as ordinary as them. For her to demonstrate her greatness or bestness, she will need a player of her class and stature, so that she can show her moves on the court, her delicate drops, her sublime movements, her powerful smashes, her teasing lobs, her deceptive footwork, her flexible wrist. Its only when she gets a chance of showcase her range she shall be able to answer her claim.

I unfortunately am in the same situation.

I am the best.

It’s a reality.

A fact as true as sun rising from the west. (caught it, was just checking if you were paying attention)

I can prove it provided you are also the best.

Unless you are not a player of not my skill it is impossible for me to prove and world to believe.

So if you do kiss and don’t like it, it showcases your mediocrity and not my greatness.

P.S: Now some intelligent brains would be thinking and considering kiss from POV of badminton. Ladies, I know the rules of the game better than you, I know you are thinking, if I play against Sania, I would know she is better player than me and others I have played against and hence say she is better. My beautiful reader, analogy is not a parallel, it is to explain a point. To understand and explain limitation of judgment of kiss, let me give you another analogy, you play against a better player, game will be over in a blink, but if you play against a player of your caliber, the game will be more strenuous, take more effort, it will be more tiring and in your summation far more fun. Unfortunately unlike badminton, where you will know a better play, in a kiss your judgment will be based on equality and you will not be able to appreciate quality, unless you know what quality is.



7 khoon maaf – Let’s slaughter

21 Feb

Trying to write a movie review after ages, actually watched a movie after many months, that was actually worthy of putting an effort to write by its worthlessness.

And it’s worthless because it pretends to be priceless; holes so big in the plot that a crowd can pass through them standing on each other’s shoulders.

But why do I have so many problems with it?

If you have seen 7 khoon maaf, you would know the movie is not an inane entertainment, it is definitely not a thriller since the murders are so simply executed that there is no thrill, it is definitely not a horror film so much so that it doesn’t boost of a single on the edge of the seat moment, it is not a mystery with everything happening in front of yours eyes, it is not ambiguous film where you are never sure as we are shown and told that she killed her husbands. Since we know what it is not, the only safe assumption we can make is that the movie thinks that it is a thinking film.

Even with this premise, to be honest, I normally don’t think much about movies or their shortcomings but this movie has at its heart a concept that fascinates me a lot that is the concept of an idea called love. The journey of the main character is a quest for love, that’s what the movie claims and throughout the story the fact is reiterated by multiple characters in, no no not in various forms, in the same form uttering the same words like a parroted witness in a court trial. Insincere and dishonest.

I doubt anyone older than a certain age has not considered or dwelled upon the topic of eternal love and its illusiveness, and internal reconciliation and compromise with the fact eventually. But here is a character who searches for it from the age of 20-65 and never loses hope.


Or is it unrealistic premise?

Or maybe insane and a sign of mental instability?

I could have applauded the belief of the heroine and understood her motivations and compulsions better if I could have answered some of the questions in my mind better. And don’t think these are inane questions, love eventually is a test of time and not the heights of passion. In love how far the point of end is pegged that defines its depth and not its height at the beginning of the journey.

1. 6 marriages in a period of some 45 years, almost 7 ½ years in each wedding. Can I take that as an benchmark or maybe around 6 years per wedding keeping other things constant?

2. Or did each marriage have a different life span, ranging from few months to decades in some other case? But none of the marriages point to longevity in any case. They all seem to be extremely short lived. Few weeks to maybe some months and maybe 2-3 years if one really stretches the limits. What was the lady doing in the interim periods? She seemed quite a passionate woman and her need for physical closeness endless. How did she quell her needs during that period? Was she in illicit relationship with her servants to instill such a strong sense of loyalty?

3. Except for the first wedding and we will come back to that wedding again, all other marriages were her own choices And she did not come across as morally so uptight that she would not get into physical closeness before wedding. So how did the marriage with Irfan Khan happen? How could she be so ignorant about that aspect?

4. And someone with moral ambiguity as she, what exactly was her problem with the Russian spy? That he cheated on her?

5. The weirdest of them was murder of the doctor; she already has been shown as foolish with money for the sake of “love” so why did he have to kill her for that?

And now we come to the main issue with the problem.

What exactly was her quest?

Let me start with the assumption that it was love. And now let’s look at her life from this filter. And we shall also murder them all one by one.

1. “Major” problem – Except when she calls him incapable of fathering, the man is never shown to be cruel to her. He seems to enjoy spending time with her, he has not shown to be greedy of her wealth, he seems to be so much in love with her to the point of insanely possessive. So what exactly was her problem with him, that she actually was an alcoholic and couldn’t drink or that she was a woman of loose morals and she wanted to have sex with many or that she killed him because he was cruel man? Let’s assume he was cruel and not very understanding man.

2. Love “Drug” problem – Hmmm… except for the fact that he was a druggist and hence victim of a habit, what was her problem. I am assuming that she understood that it’s important to be compassionate and understanding (refer to husband no, 1 note above) in relationship, she too was one. But then obviously she wasn’t, she was impatient and killed a helpless man. I would like to remind that poor drug addled brainless, nightgown wearing boy at no point has shown to not love her, like gentleman no. 1, and even in his helpless state he tries to make her happy.

3. Love “hurts” – This I have already explained why it makes no sense. Except remember the way the man is killed. Buried alive. This from a woman who couldn’t bear the pain of slaps and bites. And like gentleman 1 and 2, he also loves her and they seem to spend actually very loving romantic moments except for that time in the bed.

4. Russian roulette – Actually this one deserved to die, Mr. Master Spy, did no check on the lady he was marrying and the organization that knows everything didn’t do the basic background check and psychoanalysis to find out if the lady was sane. There is only one explanation to this irrational behavior Mr. Spy actually fell in love with the lady.

5. “Why gaya re” – Passion of the youth, holds on till the old age. And when he gets she is old, with all signs of age reflected in bloated body. He divorces wife, marries her to find grave for his ardor for the lady. But she was not looking for a man who loved her but the man she loved. Right? Wrong.

6. “Mushrooming” love – She loved him, he loved her money. He wanted to kill her. She killed him. But look at husband no. 5, to find why the reason is faulty.

In a nutshell, we know the following –

1. She doesn’t love a man who loves her but she doesn’t love him

2. She doesn’t love a man she loves but who doesn’t love her

3. She doesn’t love the man she loves and he loves her but also love someone else

4. She doesn’t love the man she loves and he loves her but is helpless in front of internal compulsions

5. She doesn’t love the man she loves and he loves her but is helpless in front of external addictions and needs help and support

6. She doesn’t love the man she loves and he loves her but doesn’t love others

The truth is that the lady in question loves three things –
1. Herself
2. High of falling in love
3. High of taking life rather watching others die

She is a fucking addict.

What about those snakes?

Was it some ploy to show strength of character?

She is so helpless all the time. It’s her servants or helpers who kill, for she cannot-

1. Say no to a husband who mentally abuses her

2. Face the pain of her husband

3. Say no to a husband who physically abuses her

4. Say no to a rapist

The mistake the film maker has made is to peg this as a “thinking” film but unfortunately if you “think” even a little about it, you find that it is a bloody thoughtless film.

I am God

15 Feb

How many ones does 1 have? Is 1 a solitary number, complete in its identity? Not needing anything, not wanting anything more?

Have you ever noticed 1 and I look so similar to each other, like identical twins, like two sides of a coin, mirror images of each other, part of different worlds yet connoting the same meaning.

Is that the ultimate challenge of life to reach a complete isolation?

But is 1 actually alone?

Let’s try to find out empirically.

I take a pen, a white sheet, a pair of scissors and then I write one big 1 on the paper running from top to bottom. After that I proceed to cut the one in two parts, eureka I now have two 1s in my hand. And if my scissors have the capacity to cut up to sub-atom level, I have within each one infinite and I can keep cutting and snipping each one till pigs would fly and even after that could keep cutting till infinite time this infinite activity.

So suddenly we find that one in reality wasn’t alone, it was just an optical illusion. If I have five paper pieces and I asked a passerby to tell me the number there, howsoever he answers there would be a 5 there, five 1s or 5 depending on the perspective.

Aha, I have made an interesting discovery.

Now I quickly write down 2 and try to find more 2s with my scissor but whichever way I try there seems to be only one 2, then I proceed to 3, then to 4, and then go on to numbers running to infinity but each number seem to have only one of it within it physically, while one seems to be have all of them within it.
Nothing new there, isn’t the principle of unit, the foundation of mathematics. Everything comes from it. Each number is just a multiple of a unit.

That’s theoretical right, but the physical nature of each number is different. In physical form, I have the power to change the character of each number except 1. With 9, I can cut the head and place in front of the stem, magically we have a 10 in front of us, or take 3, I cut it in the middle, I have two semi-circles or maybe 2c alphabets, a complete mutation into a new race, language, and so and so forth.
It’s only with 1 I face a problem, whichever way I cut I just keep on getting more ones.

Its form so unchangeable.

And nothing else makes it.

It makes itself.

No creator.

No beginning

No end.

It can make anything.

Everything is made of it.

It was within all that was.

It is within all that exists.

It will be within all that would be.

It can never be destroyed.

All powerful.

All knowing.

1 is God.

That’s grammatically wrong.

I am God.