Kal ke baad aaj parson hai

I was thinking about how time flows and stuff, metaphysically, because I am not very good these days with the equations. I then got thinking about language, and wondered about the statement, that seems meaningless “kal ke baad aaj parson hai.”

Whatever I have learnt about Liguistics, tells me that this statement is self-contradictory as far as meaning is concerned. This is so because, kal means both the yesterday and today and parson is both the day before yesterday and the day after tomorrow. Now the day after(baad) yesterday is today. While the day after tomorrow is the day after tomorrow(lame of english not to have a word for this day, my language has such names so that you can talk about the whole week without naming a single day, parson,tarson, narson, sarson(and the rhyming effect too)) .

So in a way today is the day after and the day before, in a confused manner of speaking. So we would claim this meaning to be meaningless. Obviously because today is today and tomorrow is tomorrow. Yet that is not a real difference(metaphysically speaking). It is a judgement that we have made, arbitrarily, we made it I don’t know how many years ago.  This judgement, this rule of thumb, ignores for a start time dilation, the earth moving around the sun and how ever more degrees of freedom, it laughs in the face of the ever dilligently moving photon, would be bold enough as the presume all of quantum mechanics is falsehood. This falsehood propagated by cult leaders and men in power seeking everywhere to subjugate the Freeman, for all these situations arise out of some unbeliveably ridiculous and completely undefendable strategy towards life that our so called elders and ancestors employed. You really want to know what was their lifestyle. Consider two facts 1) the total number of humans that has ever existed on earth would easily be 100 to 120 billion, depending upon how far ago you want to start counting from. Today as I sit on this computers screen and type these words a further 30% of our current population is DIEING of starvation. Thus extrapolating from these two facts one can go on to say that to a first approximation, taking a limiting value, one can claim that no man has ever lived, if such a claim was to be made maybe a few hundred thousand years from now. So how does that make you feel about yourself? Infact similiarly we can claim that all humans diead as infants. We are very lucky indeed, especially those of us who have the chance to type and read this.

What should we do with this chance? I fool myself by claiming that I need more knowledge. I will only get more ignorant.

Conventional Conventions.

Beautiful people, I proclaim, I is all is imperfect. Eventually a distinction must be made, as to between the rightness and wrongness of our actions, and to the rightness or leftness of them. For convention would often have left as equivalent to be wrong. Sinistral, for example stems from left-handed, but something wrong/bad/villany is classified as being sinster.

Also, when this is pointed, a quick argument is made, an offering or rather a sacrifice is made ready for Convention, that unappeasable God, that we resort to, when we need to justify our irrationality and our judgements. The sacrifice here of course being you. That you are wrong and everyone else is right. That you are wrong and everyone else is right, precisely because, well duh, everyone cannot be wrong. And then they would shake their heads in unison and pipe, yes we are all together, and hence we are all infallible, because all of us cannot be wrong together. A more thinking type would go on to cite the argument, you say that evolution is true, if so, how could convention have survived? If it is indeed natural selection, then natural selection has selected my irrationality. Since it has selected my irrationality, ergo then maybe my irrationality is not irrational and I am actually rational.

Sadly that is not the case. There is no mass to the rightness of things. Ergo it is not as if there is a see-saw and every fucking clown on earth got on one side of it and claimed that the earth is infact on the back of a fucking tortoise and I was on the other fucking side, claiming that infact the aerth is round, then their combined mass, can make me wrong. They could build pyramids on their side and my side would still remain heavier.

Two things must be understood. Firstly, the electron is no more negatively charged than a positron is positively. What I mean is that the only fact is that electron and positron have opposite charges, but no one can claim which is positive and which one is negative, for that is convention, it is because of such a position that we realise, in textbooks, that current flows in the direction opposite to the actual drift of the electrons, and then it is said, that since we have always assumed current flow to be positive, so let us continue assuming so. Thus generation after generation goes on dissolving the same bile about holes and current flow is opposite to the flow of electrons, since we are so fucking lazy to update our standard texts. For isn’t a Landau-Liftshitz treated the same way by a physicist, much the same reverence with which my grandfather would look at the Holy Quran? And how typically human of the physicist to snicker at my grandfather for revering a book. Can the said physicist suffer the change of a single equation in his holy text? Or maybe an alternate derivation? Or an alternate definition? Then it would not remain the same book by the same author would be argued.

I am reminded of the story where a guy tries to sell Lincoln’s axe. The buyer is apprenhensive, it doesn’t look that old he says. Oh the seller replies, it was getting too old, so I had the handle replaced twice and the edge replaced thrice, but it is the same axe that Lincoln used.

Eventually we are all irrational, probably no one more deluded than me, who thinks that evolution is not an argument against, but the greatest proof that there is a God.

In the end I would reiterate, that just because more people believe in it, doesn’t make a wrong belief right. Evidently most beliefs are not wrong but left. Thus is it wrong to or is it a sin to eat salad with a pitchfork? Highly risky, and somewhat indavisable, but not really a wrong.