Comments for In Quest of the Right Questions

Comment on Life, the Universe and Nearly Everything by chithal

chithal — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:21:32 +0000

I read Shobhana M’s comments (shobhachechi) with great interest. It hit me now that while schools and colleges tend to make us a stand-alone individual (the standard being usually the rank/grade in class – you should always be among the top) a professional envionment demands us to work in teams. There are rarely any individual feelings, it is mostly about a group and teamwork.

And yet, as she rightly points out, it is the friendship at academics that flourish/continue. I have hardly any friends made from my work places, barring one or two. Seems universal.

Well, may be because we were care-free then.

Comment on Life, the Universe and Nearly Everything by shobhanamohandas

shobhanamohandas — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 19:00:06 +0000

I came to read this blog as i heard of it from relatives.
Very well written , i must say: Just to express my views on some points in the blog: The observation of the author that, “There are very few people to whom I talk about my thoughts at a level where I feel- “Ah, we are communicating!”. There are many people who know me, whom I know, with whom I just pass by. And I suspect the reason for that is that I don’t have a coherent enough story of myself, to tell myself. And I don’t have a coherent enough story of myself, to tell others.” The simple truth i have learned through my life is: Nobody is interested in “me” unless that “me” has something to offer to the other person to whom the “me” relates. If the “me” is rich, the aquaintance is wondering if some money could be helpful. If the “me” is hilarious, the aquaintance is happy to elevate his/her moments in life with the assossiation with “me”. If the “me” is simply a compainion, with whom one can go for a movie, a drink, a conference, or a picnic, depending on the aquaintance, the relationship between the “me” and the “aquaintance ” buds.
If in between, if there is some chemistry between the “me” and the “aquaintance’, it may flower.
Even if there is no chemistry, if there is utter necessity of the relationship continuing, each one agrees to tolerate the other’s shortcomings, and the relationship continues.
If there is chemistry of understanding, the relationship blossoms and even through breaks in it, can be revived even after long periods.
Thus, it is not the incoherence of articulation or an uninteresting story of “myself” which leads to lack of relationships. It is sometimes the lack of wanting it badly enough
after college days are over very few people , nay hardly any people relate closely to anyone except for professional aquaintances. Somehow our best friends are still the ones we made in college or school, where friendship was unconditional, unlike in working life.

If one wants relationship one would find ways and means of finding the problems/joys of the person one wants to relate to: the key factor is ” i am good, whatever, however, i am”
if i want a friendship, i just dream about it and laws of cosmic nature will bring vibes of how to get it going.
if i am happy without friendships, that is also good enough, i guess. many of us are in professions where we just go through the nuances of every day business of ” making 100% use of all faculties given to us” that we have no time to think of friendships or relationships.
well, i’ll come back some time, some day later,
shobhana mohandas

Comment on Holding on to radical questions by Charanjeet Singh

Charanjeet Singh — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 16:40:57 +0000

My understanding of this is that one should not restrain thought process, there would always be constraints within which one has to work, there can never be perfect situation so like both of you have rightly mentioned one needs to define what is negotiable and what is not.Some of these may change but some of these would never change. I work in Fraud Risk area so for me during course of my work it is non negotiable to do anything which can compromise an investigation but i might accept it if recommended action is taken taken based on findings. I try to ask questions and sometimes hold back the questions for appropriate time or build them up, which helps most of the time. I think most of the constraints are due to policies, procedures etc & at least in corporate world, they are open to change if value add is shown. I like your blog, my wife told me about it.

Comment on Holding on to radical questions by AVG Warrier

AVG Warrier — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:32:18 +0000

You are right. Evolution takes place along a spriral staircase. The inner model has to be dynamic. This model per se is one of the negotiable things in life. The fact that the staircase should lead upwards is non-negotiable. Now are our ideas about what is up and what is down negotiable or non-negotiable? I wonder.

Comment on Holding on to radical questions by Kishore A

Kishore A — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 06:12:09 +0000

Yeah, I think the crucial thing is to discover what is negotiable and non-negotiable, for myself. I also see that my understanding of what is negotiable and what is non-negotiable is not something static but keeps evolving.

I think the only way for me to refine my understanding is to assume some things as negotiable and some others as non-negotiable and listen to my emotional responses to situations as I try to live them out. Sometimes I see that something I thought of as non-negotiable is perhaps negotiable and vice versa.

For example, I enter a situation thinking that something is negotiable, but I feel a deep resistance within, to the negotiation. That shows something I hadn’t known about myself, about what I’m seeking and what I’m avoiding. And this goes on.

And I think what you say about being pliable in what I consider negotiable and rigid in what I consider non-negotiable is crucial, without which there’s no coherent evolution and refinement of my understanding of myself. Then I have felt as if I’m just floating around aimlessly.

Comment on Holding on to radical questions by AVG Warrier

AVG Warrier — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 05:49:48 +0000

I remember reading somewhere in the ‘Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna’ an observation by him that if you do not try to find out what you really want to do you will end up as a slave of rich men. He was metaphorically presenting the confusion associated wtih the shedding of one’s ego. Shedding our ego should mean consecrating it for a higher purpose, and not subordinating it to other egos.

There are areas where you are a master and the others listen to you. There are areas where you are not a master and you have to listen to others. One radical question that is common to all is about discovering which is which, and then developing the art of dealing with the two areas with two different sets of approaches.

Freezing one’s approach is generally the root of our confusions. When we adamantly say that this is my approach, come what may, and mind is closed to everything else, it is difficult to get attached to radical questions. Then in the attempt to find an average approach that suits all situations one lands up in one that doesn’t suit any situation properly.

So try to find out what is negotiable and what is not negotiable. In what is negotiable one should be totally pliable and in what is not negotiable one should be perfectly rigid. Otherwise one cannot be a vibrant, living, organism.

Balammama

Comment on Teaching Computer Science Bottom-Up by Pramode

Pramode — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 15:32:42 +0000

You need both the top-down and bottom-up approaches. Both will work. Check out http://www.bootstrapworld.org/ – it is an excellent example of the “abstraction first” approach.

Comment on Teaching Computer Science Bottom-Up by Chithal

Chithal — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 14:51:11 +0000

In my very first job, I was assigned to assist a training in VMS (an operating system from DEC). My role was to keep the environment ready for participants to work on, while the lead will take sessions.

The participants were senior officials from a public sector firm in Kerala. Naturally they were happy to find me among the faculty.

One of the exercises was to restrict the login of participants (to show the power of superuser). After we disabled logins of participants, they were asked to login, which of course they were unable to.

The lead was full of enthusiasm and explained about the capabilities of the superuser. The participants hardly noticed the excitement in his voice, as they were irritated that the system was not accepting their passwords, and they did not understand the reason!!! Often that is what happens if the session is post-lunch and the participants are a little old while faculty is relatively young

Comment on Teaching Computer Science Bottom-Up by Kishore A

Kishore A — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 01:09:31 +0000

Do feel free to write to me at my email address, given on this page- http://kishoreathrasseri.wordpress.com/about/

Comment on Teaching Computer Science Bottom-Up by Haris Ibrahim K. V.

Haris Ibrahim K. V. — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 18:45:04 +0000

What you have said you are teaching those kids, I do not understand them even now after completing four years of B. Tech Engineering. I strive to be teacher, seeking teachers to be inspired by. I guess I have found one such person here.

I would like to meet you in person and talk with you about what motivates you and inspired you to take this up.