Thursday, December 29, 2005

What is Enlightenment?

An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?", by Immanuel Kant
Konigsberg in Prussia, 30th September, 1784.

Immanuel Kant (April 22, 1724 – February 12, 1804), was a German philosopher and scientist (astrophysics, mathematics, geography, anthropology) from East Prussia. Kant is generally considered one of the greatest and most influential thinkers of modern Europe and the last major philosopher of the Enlightenment.

Immanuel Kant is one Philospher that always amazed me... this is an article straight out of his mouth.. .. no contribution to this from my side..
Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! "Have courage to use your own reason!" - that is the motto of enlightenment.

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a portion of mankind, after nature has long since discharged them from external direction (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless remains under lifelong tutelage, and why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so easy not to be of age. If I have a book which understands for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a physician who decides my diet, and so forth, I need not trouble myself. I need not think, if I can only pay - others will easily undertake the irksome work for me.

That the step to competence is held to be very dangerous by the far greater portion of mankind (and by the entire fair sex) - quite apart from its being arduous is seen to by those guardians who have so kindly assumed superintendence over them. After the guardians have first made their domestic cattle dumb and have made sure that these placid creatures will not dare take a single step without the harness of the cart to which they are tethered, the guardians then show them the danger which threatens if they try to go alone. Actually, however, this danger is not so great, for by falling a few times they would finally learn to walk alone. But an example of this failure makes them timid and ordinarily frightens them away from all further trials.

For any single individual to work himself out of the life under tutelage which has become almost his nature is very difficult. He has come to be fond of his state, and he is for the present really incapable of making use of his reason, for no one has ever let him try it out. Statutes and formulas, those mechanical tools of the rational employment or rather misemployment of his natural gifts, are the fetters of an everlasting tutelage. Whoever throws them off makes only an uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch because he is not accustomed to that kind of free motion. Therefore, there are few who have succeeded by their own exercise of mind both in freeing themselves from incompetence and in achieving a steady pace.

But that the public should enlighten itself is more possible; indeed, if only freedom is granted enlightenment is almost sure to follow. For there will always be some independent thinkers, even among the established guardians of the great masses, who, after throwing off the yoke of tutelage from their own shoulders, will disseminate the spirit of the rational appreciation of both their own worth and every man's vocation for thinking for himself. But be it noted that the public, which has first been brought under this yoke by their guardians, forces the guardians themselves to remain bound when it is incited to do so by some of the guardians who are themselves capable of some enlightenment - so harmful is it to implant prejudices, for they later take vengeance on their cultivators or on their descendants. Thus the public can only slowly attain enlightenment.

Perhaps a fall of personal despotism or of avaricious or tyrannical oppression may be accomplished by revolution, but never a true reform in ways of thinking. Farther, new prejudices will serve as well as old ones to harness the great unthinking masses.
For this enlightenment, however, nothing is required but freedom, and indeed the most harmless among all the things to which this term can properly be applied. It is the freedom to make public use of one's reason at every point. But I hear on all sides, "Do not argue!" The Officer says: "Do not argue but drill!" The tax collector: "Do not argue but pay!" The cleric: "Do not argue but believe!" Only one prince in the world says, "Argue as much as you will, and about what you will, but obey!" Everywhere there is restriction on freedom.

Which restriction is an obstacle to enlightenment, and which is not an obstacle but a promoter of it? I answer: The public use of one's reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men. The private use of reason, on the other hand, may often be very narrowly restricted without particularly hindering the progress of enlightenment. By the public use of one's reason I understand the use which a person makes of it as a scholar before the reading public. Private use I call that which one may make of it in a particular civil post or office which is entrusted to him. Many affairs which are conducted in the interest of the community require a certain mechanism through which some members of the community must passively conduct themselves with an artificial unanimity, so that the government may direct them to public ends, or at least prevent them from destroying those ends. Here argument is certainly not allowed - one must obey. But so far as a part of the mechanism regards himself at the same time as a member of the whole community or of a society of world citizens, and thus in the role of a scholar who addresses the public (in the proper sense of the word) through his writings, he certainly can argue without hurting the affairs for which he is in part responsible as a passive member. Thus it would be ruinous for an officer in service to debate about the suitability or utility of a command given to him by his superior; he must obey. But the right to make remarks on errors in the military service and to lay them before the public for judgment cannot equitably be refused him as a scholar. The citizen cannot refuse to pay the taxes imposed on him; indeed, an impudent complaint at those levied on him can be punished as a scandal (as it could occasion general refractoriness). But the same person nevertheless does not act contrary to his duty as a citizen, when, as a scholar, he publicly expresses his thoughts on the inappropriateness or even the injustices of these levies, Similarly a clergyman is obligated to make his sermon to his pupils in catechism and his congregation conform to the symbol of the church which he serves, for he has been accepted on this condition. But as a scholar he has complete freedom, even the calling, to communicate to the public all his carefully tested and well meaning thoughts on that which is erroneous in the symbol and to make suggestions for the better organization of the religious body and church. In doing this there is nothing that could be laid as a burden on his conscience. For what he teaches as a consequence of his office as a representative of the church, this he considers something about which he has not freedom to teach according to his own lights; it is something which he is appointed to propound at the dictation of and in the name of another. He will say, "Our church teaches this or that; those are the proofs which it adduces." He thus extracts all practical uses for his congregation from statutes to which he himself would not subscribe with full conviction but to the enunciation of which he can very well pledge himself because it is not impossible that truth lies hidden in them, and, in any case, there is at least nothing in them contradictory to inner religion. For if he believed he had found such in them, he could not conscientiously discharge the duties of his office; he would have to give it up. The use, therefore, which an appointed teacher makes of his reason before his congregation is merely private, because this congregation is only a domestic one (even if it be a large gathering); with respect to it, as a priest, he is not free, nor can he be free, because he carries out the orders of another. But as a scholar, whose writings speak to his public, the world, the clergyman in the public use of his reason enjoys an unlimited freedom to use his own reason to speak in his own person. That the guardian of the people (in spiritual things) should themselves be incompetent is an absurdity which amounts to the eternalization of absurdities.

But would not a society of clergymen, perhaps a church conference or a venerable classis (as they call themselves among the Dutch), be justified in obligating itself by oath to a certain unchangeable symbol in order to enjoy an unceasing guardianship over each of its numbers and thereby over the people as a whole, and even to make it eternal? I answer that this is altogether impossible. Such contract, made to shut off all further enlightenment from the human race, is absolutely null and void even if confirmed by the supreme power, by parliaments, and by the most ceremonious of peace treaties. An age cannot bind itself and ordain to put the succeeding one into such a condition that it cannot extend its (at best very occasional) knowledge, purify itself of errors, and progress in general enlightenment. That would be a crime against human nature, the proper destination of which lies precisely in this progress and the descendants would be fully justified in rejecting those decrees as having been made in an unwarranted and malicious manner.

The touchstone of everything that can be concluded as a law for a people lies in the question whether the people could have imposed such a law on itself. Now such religious compact might be possible for a short and definitely limited time, as it were, in expectation of a better. One might let every citizen, and especially the clergyman, in the role of scholar, make his comments freely and publicly, i.e. through writing, on the erroneous aspects of the present institution. The newly introduced order might last until insight into the nature of these things had become so general and widely approved that through uniting their voices (even if not unanimously) they could bring a proposal to the throne to take those congregations under protection which had united into a changed religious organization according to their better ideas, without, however hindering others who wish to remain in the order. But to unite in a permanent religious institution which is not to be subject to doubt before the public even in the lifetime of one man, and thereby to make a period of time fruitless in the progress of mankind toward improvement, thus working to the disadvantage of posterity - that is absolutely forbidden. For himself (and only for a short time) a man may postpone enlightenment in what he ought to know, but to renounce it for posterity is to injure and trample on the rights of mankind. And what a people may not decree for itself can even less be decreed for them by a monarch, for his lawgiving authority rests on his uniting the general public will in his own. If he only sees to it that all true or alleged improvement stands together with civil order, he can leave it to his subjects to do what they find necessary for their spiritual welfare. This is not his concern, though it is incumbent on him to prevent one of them from violently hindering another in determining and promoting this welfare to the best of his ability. To meddle in these matters lowers his own majesty, since by the writings in which his own subjects seek to present their views he may evaluate his own governance. He can do this when, with deepest understanding, he lays upon himself the reproach, Caesar non est supra grammaticos. Far more does he injure his own majesty when he degrades his supreme power by supporting the ecclesiastical despotism of some tyrants in his state over his other subjects.

If we are asked, "Do we now live in an enlightened age?" the answer is, "No," but we do live in an age of enlightenment. As things now stand, much is lacking which prevents men from being, or easily becoming, capable of correctly using their own reason in religious matters with assurance and free from outside direction. But on the other hand, we have clear indications that the field has now been opened wherein men may freely dea1 with these things and that the obstacles to general enlightenment or the release from self-imposed tutelage are gradually being reduced. In this respect, this is the age of enlightenment, or the century of Frederick.

A prince who does not find it unworthy of himself to say that he holds it to be his duty to prescribe nothing to men in religious matters but to give them complete freedom while renouncing the haughty name of tolerance, is himself enlightened and deserves to be esteemed by the grateful world and posterity as the first, at least from the side of government, who divested the human race of its tutelage and left each man free to make use of his reason in matters of conscience. Under him venerable ecclesiastics are allowed, in the role of scholar, and without infringing on their official duties, freely to submit for public testing their judgments and views which here and there diverge from the established symbol. And an even greater freedom is enjoyed by those who are restricted by no official duties. This spirit of freedom spreads beyond this land, even to those in which it must struggle with external obstacles erected by a government which misunderstands its own interest. For an example gives evidence to such a government that in freedom there is not the least cause for concern about public peace and the stability of the community. Men work themselves gradually out of barbarity if only intentional artifices are not made to hold them in it.

I have placed the main point of enlightenment - the escape of men from their self-incurred tutelage - chiefly in matters of religion because our rulers have no interest in playing guardian with respect to the arts and sciences and also because religious incompetence is not only the most harmful but also the most degrading of all. But the manner of thinking of the head of a state who favors religious enlightenment goes further, and he sees that there is no danger to his lawgiving in allowing his subjects to make public use of their reason and to publish their thoughts on a better formulation of his legislation and even their open-minded criticisms of the laws already made. Of this we have a shining example wherein no monarch is superior to him we honor.

But only one who is himself enlightened, is not afraid of shadows, and has a numerous and well-disciplined army to assure public peace, can say: "Argue as much as you will, and about what you will, only obey!" A republic could not dare say such a thing. Here is shown a strange and unexpected trend in human affairs in which almost everything, looked at in the large, is paradoxical. A greater degree of civil freedom appears advantageous to the freedom of mind of the people, and yet it places inescapable limitations upon it. A lower degree of civil freedom, on the contrary, provides the mind with room for each man to extend himself to his full capacity. As nature has uncovered from under this hard shell the seed for which she most tenderly cares - the propensity and vocation to free thinking - this gradually works back upon the character of the people, who thereby gradually become capable of managing freedom; finally, it affects the principles of government, which finds it to its advantage to treat men, who are now more than machines, in accordance with their dignity.

Wednesday, December 28, 2005


To Anita, My Dear Friend, who wanted me to write about Faith!

Its one word all of us feel tabooed to speak about, yet deeply posses it, guard it, cherish it, that’s the magic of faith!

What the heck? I am not “faith” fella/felle. Faith is for the Religious Joe / the sadhu / the mullah….or whatever, you get the idea right?

The reason, I suppose most of us refrain from being faithful (!@#$) in acknowledging the “faith” thingie is, the fear of losing! What if faith is lost? That very thought shakes the damm faith in ourselves and hence….<para 1>

If we step aside from the “religious” connotation of faith, then the whole world opens to the mystical platform no 9 ¾ (Nine and Three Quarters), or you can go deep through the Alice’s world down the rabbit hole…. Trust me (can say have faith) and I will take you deep down that way.

To start with, let’s do the God thingie first! I define faith as “Forgetting All, I Trust Him”. Hmm, when the impossible stares in our face, and then we sure do remember our creator, and suddenly, we are filled with a confidence that is as ironic as the coldness on Iron on a freezing winter morning, like in Hyderabad yesterday @ 8 C. The even colder reality, this damm thing works, and we succeed. (A word of caution – faith does not work, when you intentionally screw up and smile before GOD, but when you are lost and look up to him).

Now, more earthly things – Faith is about willing to lose the rational mind to eventually succeed. The biggest problem with faith is Rationale.. …but How can this be? !!!

If we go down memory lanes, it’s the same question “how can this be?” that led to the most brilliant of innovations and the best creations. This question, and that sense of awe and wonder, when taken in the positive sense, creates the best of creativity, a spurt full of energy that never existed, and a confidence that never beamed on us –That’s what faith can do !..... on the other hand, on one
F#!$@@#$ Wednesday evening, we say “how can this be?”…and instead of letting the creative juices flow, we engulf ourselves, in a world of amazing rationale (thanks to the ever so fertile sexy brain), we refuse to see the wonder, the complexity, and yes, we are on the one way spiral to no man’s land. Where reasoning reason that reason was wrong, and we landed here.

The problem is twofold –

One-we have been trained for 20 odd years to reason more to find why things go wrong, than to how things could be better.

Two-A sense of wonder is frowned as being.. .(let me not write it …we are all experts of that)….

So, same thing, it’s one word all of us feel tabooed to speak about, yet deeply posses it, guard it, cherish it, that’s the magic of faith!

Now I define faith as Fully Amazed, I Travel Head-on

Unplugged and Wired!

Two very different words, the former meaning freedom, and the later being tied (wired). Bring both together and; wow! You are in the world of infinite possibities…in the wired (connected) world, you can go full throttle (unplugged).

Just wonder the number of possibilities that we can do in this unplugged state… online dating, virtual conferencing, cyber romance, heard some new innovation – simulated cyber sex…ahem! (Arjun…did you hear that?), and for more useful things… everything available at the touch of a button.

This is something that just happened, Boss says, I am out in the afternoon – it’s my birthday – now I can’t blame myself for not remembering his b’day – I don’t remember most girls b’day, and he is my 7th boss in my small 5 yrs of work across 3.5 companies (0.5 company – will write about that some time later).

He will be out in 1.5 hours from now..and bah…my office just a light year away from civilization – we are the species “Workerica Intellectualica” and are in a planet a lil far from civilization called “concreatika Jungilicia villagia” – and I wanted to order a cake – Canteen fella says- by 5 PM sharp, and all major bakers says – they stopped delivering across inter planetary destinations.

A lil hopeful (yu see I am an eternal optimist!), I called the online yellow pages, and said.. blah blah blah.. 1 hr, cake delivery…destination “concreatika Jungilicia villagia”. Nice sounding female – jutted some 20 alternate numbers – 4 calls later - Deal finalized - the cake should be arriving in 45 minutes…. Amazing…feels nice to be wired and unplugged!

P.S: Others who have already started thinking of alternate possibilities, they don’t offer alternate services – it’s a good business service – don’t spoil the world. ha ha ha

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Defining the Management Species….

Ever wondered why the pointy haired guy in Dilbert earned a million bucks, and why the not working fatso, writing blogs like this gets paid…

Let’s define the management species

Type 1 – The Gyan Givers
This type typically alternates between animated mysticism & uncharacteristic forthrighted ness, armed with a plethora of facts and events that they can twist and mould so subtly, to their advantage, that you will swear by hell, that it’s the coolest place to go, and bet your purse on it.

These guys when they work, (assuming they will occasionally to undo the ill feeling of being obsessively paid) come with strategies and thought processes that are ahead of time, and you would be surprised, how on EARTH they could do this – You see, their strength is their power to think, and the ability to interpret the “thinking” in words – They earn their worth by one simple great idea, one per year (if passive) and one per Quarter (if aggressive).

Generally 100% original

Type 2 – The Gyan Interpreters
This type typically, are aspiring Gyan givers, but have been cheated by mother earth, that their cerebellum refuses to be able to think beyond a certain point –reason – They need a constant adrenalin shots of being in the thick (not think!) of doing things. They feel justified about their pay, when they are so tired that they cannot spend what they earn.

These guys, become the most successful managers, and some end up by misfortune as leaders, and think they have become Gyan Givers –and wonder why people hate them, and lower ups give them proxy Gyan.

These guys excel in adapting available GYAN to current situations –and can pass off as near original – till they are cornered in an absolute mess.

Type 3 – The Gyan(i) Babas
These guys assume they have lots of Gyan, when all they have is lots of English (thanks to “Norman Lewis – Word Power Made Easy”). These people discuss extremely abstract subjects like – How to get and alien to attain a near similar human orgasm?

They cannot do any work – period. They can find hundreds of faults with almost everything that has been created or can be created in the next 10 light years. They give, give, give, give, give, give, give…gyan till the point they believe the very thing they gave was actually what gave them birth – meaning – he is Gyani (Gyan + I) personified and the company’s ultimate solution.

hese guys are the ones who think, they are CEO material, while at best they can do is woo a few unsuspecting girls in their first jobs.

Type 4 – The Gyan Mongers
These guys are young, intelligent and foolish. They would not close their eye lids, just in case they would miss one important slide, are part of every training, and would have read the complete set of “Shiv Kera’s –Self improvement Program” and their library stocked with all the editions of “one minute Manager”.

The have the Gyani Babas, as the ultimate Gods, and these guys are exceptional hard workers, or rather made to work exceptionally hard.

You find these guys, in the best corporate dresses, speaking big terms, and watch only Hollywood movies. These guys are the working class of the Management species and are needed very much in the economy.

The Power of Love ? ?

Power of Love? Creeps – Johnnyboy is on another emotional infringement. Well, we always hear what all ‘love can do’ …the lots of good times, the emotional highs, the sheer pleasure of feeling wanted. How many of these feelings inspired many a poet, many a film, many a tear (of course of joy).

Well, while how wonderful these feelings can be, I was thinking how “Un-Wonderful” the same – when one chooses NOT to love, and here are some uneventful that eventually happen.
  • Reason replaces forgiveness - when you choose to love – you overlook even the greatest stabs, every actions demands a reason and the ulterior motive and intent comes to the test
  • History Replaces Future – This is the worst thing; while in love, one always looks ahead into a glorious future, and when one chooses not to love, the skeletons come out of Hades and the smallest mis-endeavors come to the surface – stinking history.
  • Extra time replaces no time – Gain in time, gain in pain; the curliest of paradoxes, for once ppl have the very thing they crave for , a lil more time, but now cant decide how to spend that time, wishing time flew by swiftly.
  • Emotionless ness replaces that wonderful feeling – the same blood that sent your nerves tingling with every good thought, now boils a degree higher; but with a strange sense of lack of emotion, but nevertheless a ill longing for the same feeling.
  • Restrain replaces giving – as the old saying goes, you can give without loving, but can’t love without giving; but you process? to a state where you choose not to love and not to give, while till a moment ago, giving was a natural as breathing.
If love is the answer,can you please repeat the question?
~ * ~

A small composition without the letter 'e'

I was browsing some site a few days ago, and read about some famous author who wrote s a smalls tory without using the letter 'e'. The first thought that hit my lil head today morning is - What does it entail to write something like that...why...what..and decided, I will pen down my own one - A small composition without the letter 'e'.

Here it is...

This is a grill to my writing skills. Writing that which is rational and solitary, but containing a quantitiy of wisdom - without using that sugary unit, which commands a rightful position in all words that is built.
....and it is all an ongoing paranoia, to push traditional limits of usual norms, thinking to fly, to lofty summits - or should I say, bury my skull in untaught pain to script a tiny stupid composition similar to this - to confirm WHAT?
This is the thought for this day that wish to go away with - Many unknown lands wait for our footing, for a ray of light that - only an individual that confronts limits arbitarily put in our thoughts.Gird up your loins to blank out sight of coast you at this instant, standing on.
I in no way thought that I could do this...or script anything similar to this!

Love and Trust are inseparable … are they .. ?

There is a small lil calendar on my desk, which has a thought for a day. – Today’s thought – “Love and Trust are inseparable. You can’t have one without the other.

Like always, I choose to rebel against every thought. My basic Motto –
"Rebel against every thought - and when you rebel against every thought, every system, what is eventually left is what works –and probably what’s true – even if it sounds horrendous”
Anyways coming to the thought – Can I not really trust without loving? Ah!...straight away..what the heck (!@@#$!) is trust ? Simply put, (of course after managing to grey a few more of my remaining black hair….) – Its not exactly worrying too much about crossing the T’s and ensuring you RUST (rest?) your ass, leaving all the worries to someone else; and expect that someone else to ensure that things don’t RUST – so TRUST.

Hmm…not so early, before we can marry Trust and Love – (It’s the Modern era – courtship takes precedence over commitment ;) – romance over marriage :P) have to wait till we define the LOVE thingie too.

Well…defining love is like going down the ages of Scholars, Romeos, Love Locks (ah !! its either warlock or wedlock right ?… ) - yu see, love can create things…..aha…that’s where my definition starts – The ability to create !! …. LOVE is that which has an ability to create (One sec ! ability to create all NON-MATERIAL things, just in case you have already printed a few million $$$ ).

Love creates a hope, a hope that you will be loved back – Love gives unasked, and expects things unasked – Hello? ..what the heck is this ? Ya, you guessed it right – it’s a double edged sword – It cannot exist in ISOLATION. Or in more earthly words, cause and effect – No effect – the cause dies!! Now is there anything called loving unconditionally – the only condition, you expect the same – unconditionally – you just don’t say it. J.

Let’s Marry Love and Trust! – Nope, hang on, going by the motto, I am supposed to rebel – so let me divorce both of them, and eventually see if they ………. Hmm….yu know…..

The Contender:
My Lord!, Love cannot marry Trust for Love cannot exist in isolation – It demands a reciprocation, while Trust does not, and there is disparity of expectation. (Oh..did I jump the gun – you can always TRUST someone, and be damm sure that s/he is trustworthy but the corollary of the same need not be, cos, I will trust someother, who can take Care of crossing the T, so that I can RUST my ass…remember the definition of Trust?? Well two rusting (resting) asses can only achieve one thing – Lots of RUSTING and no T’s will be crossed.

As per the law 275, and section 5645, sub clause !@#$, modern world demands that there cannot be “Disparity of Expectations”… (Whoever wrote that …that itself is a crazy expectation….what ever… .off the record!! )

The Defender:
I hope that my worthy “Contender” looks at this case with a lil more LOVE and I TRUST & that he will remember, that it’s “worthy” feelings at stake and very important that they be dealt with HOPE, as they can decide a few many things in life.

The Contender:
Objection, My Lord!, the Defender is dragging “English” into play, and manipulating words to play on TRUST, and Hoping that LOVE and TRUST find a common ground on a completely false ground, and that’s his BIG IMAGINARY HOPE

Objection …………

Sustained … The Defendant is hereby giving a warning that this case be dealt without plausible passions rising.

The Contender:
Thank you My Lord.

The Defender:
I call upon LOVE and TRUST for Questioning:

Q) LOVE! Can you state the reasons for you wanting to Marry TRUST, while the BRAIN thinks, there is a lot of disparity and you cannot coexist peacefully together?

LOVE responds:
While (with tears flowing down and a heavy heart) agree that I expect an absolute reciprocation to grow, I can transform by self and give myself a new birth into as many forms, and still love. This is driven by two factors “HOPE –which I can change and melt a few hard hearts; My Ability to CREATE (moron –not procreation…)”

If I cannot Marry TRUST, so be it for the well being of the Society, but I shall by Nature evolve into another LOVE till, I finally unite with TRUST. It’s part of me and I am it.

Q) TRUST! Why is that you want to marry LOVE? You both can coexist, and you end up paining LOVE, and eventually killing your own self of TRUST?

TRUST responds:
What do you mean (with absolute rage…!!)… you want to stop me from having LOVE – one on whom I can RUST and LOVE takes care of the T’s… it’s unfair..just unfair…you are killing my biggest opportunity….I hate you all….

The Contender:
My Lord, as you see, MY worthy CONTENDER, just proved that I was right – LOVE and TRUST cannot marry!.. .

They Have no common ground
TRUST is Selfish having LOVE as a means to RUST
LOVE is losing its identity , because of NON-RECIPROCATUION and recreating itself (and it’s the duty of the honorable court to uphold the identity of LOVE and TRUST)

After hearing all the arguments on both sides, and taking into consideration the extreme emotional dogma attached to the pesonna in question, as based on the various historical facts of BETRAYAL to which both LOVE and TRUST contribute equally, the honorary court has decided, that LOVE and TRUST cannot marry each other – however, both can continue to exist in isolation.

If this case needs to be challenged and want to be married, it can be only under the following clauses:
LOVE and TRUST are willing to switch roles as often as possible
Both partied herein inform each other of the role they have assumed by either oral, by deed or both.

All arguments in either favor will be dropped if they case to continually HOPE to GROW and LOVE and TRUST each other.

The Court is adjourned!
You see, I was right, they should ……………. (you decide…either should or should NOT)…

P.S: It was reported by confidential sources that both LOVE and TRUST are married, and there is a new cult following called – LIFE @ its BEST

Quantifying Risk……

That sounds like a risky job to do. That is something I wanted to do for a long long time…Quantify Risk and create a formula and template to do the same…and use this…for………ya before you jump the gun….for purely projects purposes only.

Boss had to suddenly attend a training, and I was given this task to reevaluate the RISK thingie that is part of every project, bid etc. … so after some good satisfying 3 hours of work – it finally evolved.

So, I officially gave birth to the following new indexes to be used in BIDs.
  • Criticality Index
  • Risk Index
  • Total Risk Factor
  • Aggressiveness Index
  • Allowed Aggressiveness
Now, the best part, I have a meeting sometime later, and guess what… will be measured?

The Risk of using these “RISKY Indexes”….. Can we really Quantify Risk? I bet ….we ……………. ????