Interesting question,the answer to which lies perhaps in the distance from which we observe the past events and put them in a linear perspective,one leading causally to others. The remote events are remote enough to yield their outlines to us against other events in their outlines and give us an idea of how one has led to the other,or rather flowed out of the other.

In the case of the recent events we take enough time to understand them as events that have relevance to the course of history, in the way other things flowed out of them,yet other things in time and space. Their hazy outlines are not visible until enough time has lapsed in human memory ,i.e.generations have gone on with the memory of the events embedded in their conscious.

-Susan Sontag, Where the Stress Falls via The floating library

E-books are supposed to replace paper books in the end ,mere book-screens which will bring any book on demand,as also give you the ability to speak to portions of it ,i.e. They will enable you to potentially break the silence of the words.Words which have lain quiet in the pages of the book for years will now be forced to speak,reply to your answers, recant if necessary on what they have already said while in the burial mode. The authors words have lost their final say.What they say will be subject to newer interpretations ,available not in the reader’s unspoken minds but right there on the screen, to be reinforced and revised as more readers apply their minds to it.

Will the paper books remain ? Looks like they will. There will always be some who prefer the last word as from the author.Wouldn’t one sometimes like the monotone of an author’s drone? And then what happens to the barbarians? Where will they go to burn? Well , they can now burn life-sized effigies of the authors in the city squares.

http://thefloatinglibrary.com/2011/09/25/dear-borges/

Wonder if this is a mere joke or it is fairly illustrative of a structured thinking,which leads the mind though a carefully constructed logical sequence proceeding , one step at a time.If one has to achieve a “jump” in the steps,i.e.skipping the intermediate step ,one must have the freedom in the mind derived from an intellectual exercise usually possible in a thinking mode freed from structures.

The mind must have the capacity to judge the inconsequentialness of the intermediate step and take steps in advance to get on to the significant next step,a cognitive skill the lack or inadequacy of which produces hilarious outcomes such as the one in the above dialogue.

Needs elaboration ? The next time.

(From my Ohlife journal)

A rainfall theory of democracy

From Stephen Haber and Victor Menaldo:

Why have some countries remained obstinately authoritarian despite repeated waves of democratization while others have exhibited uninterrupted democracy? This paper explores the emergence and persistence of authoritarianism and democracy. We argue that settled agriculture requires moderate levels of precipitation, and that settled agriculture eventually gave birth to the fundamental institutions that under-gird today’s stable democracies. Although all of the world’s societies were initially tribal, the bonds of tribalism weakened in places where the surpluses associated with settled agriculture gave rise to trade, social differentiation, and taxation. In turn, the economies of scale required to efficiently administer trade and taxes meant that feudalism was eventually replaced by the modern territorial state, which favored the initial emergence of representative institutions in Western Europe. Subsequently, when these initial territorial states set out to conquer regions populated by tribal peoples, the institutions that could emerge in those conquered areas again reflected nature’s constraints. An instrumental variables approach demonstrates that while low levels of rainfall cause persistent autocracy and high levels of rainfall strongly favor it as well, moderate rainfall supports stable democracy. This econometric strategy also shows that rainfall works through the institutions of the modern territorial state borne from settled agriculture, institutions that are proxied for by low levels of contemporary tribalism.

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/10/a-rainfall-theory-of-democracy.html

The above theory seems ,on the face of it, a reasonable one but if you look close enough ,it does not explain the lack of democracy in some countries like Pakistan where despite repeated democratization attempts military rule keeps coming in every once in a while. In India and Pakistan similar rainfall conditions prevail but in India there has never been an authoritarian regime.

– Bertrand Russell
(Quote taken from The Floating Library)

I wonder what he means when he said the fact that Wittgenstein was the only man who looked puzzled at his lectures made him think well of him .Was it merely facetiousness ? One possible reason could be that everything of what he said posed no puzzles to others while he seemed to think there was much in it that was too deep for the audience to grasp and there was no reason for them not to look puzzled. Surely this cannot be the reason because Wittgenstein could not have been presuming that his lectures should go over their heads.The fact that Moore thought well of him merely on the basis of the philosopher’s puzzlement before an audience who seemed to understand everything is a certificate of the philosopher’s ability . Apparently it is the ability of the audience which is suspect.If they had tried to grasp what he was saying they too would be as puzzled as the philosopher was.

But the question that remains unanswered is whether the audience’s inability to grasp what he says proves,ipso facto,the philosopher’s own ability to grasp the subject,irrespective of his ability to explain it to the audience.The fact that he looked puzzled does not necessarily prove that he is “at sea” on the subject.It may even prove the other possibility that there was much in what he says that had to puzzle anybody.The fact that he was the only person who looked puzzled indicates that he alone understood the subject while the audience did not attempt to grasp it.Had they attempted it,they too would have been puzzled.

A mobile phone enables all the members of the close-knit community to stay in touch when some of them are out eking out their living in other parts of the town or even in other towns. The mobile phone keeps together all the members of the community making others of the community available instantly. A real good substitute for the traditional community habitations like mohallas, poles, chawls in which several families live in close communities. That probably is what explains the phenomenal popularity and use of the mobile phone in India

The point this gentleman makes is there could be defects or patches of logical inconsistency or the philosopher’s own obscurity in an argument .Should one take the overall drift of the argument if conforms to a pre-conceived thought even if there are occasional holes ,real or perceived, in the argument .An interesting thought. A reading of the Hindu philosophy (Vedanta) will give you such a feeling . The basic argument remains the same while the words go on .There is hardly a difference in thoughts and words as though words cease to be vehicles for thoughts and have a purpose of their own apart from conveying meaning.Words themselves are meaning.The gaps that happen are mere semantics where instead of the mind proceeding with thoughts they struggle with words.

I have just learnt that “panhandle” is an Americanism for begging. I am fascinated by the beauty of the expression, especially the image of the arm of a sitting beggar stuck out like the handle of a pan. The expression contains an entire word picture of a beggar who sits on a crowded sidewalk extending his begging arm towards the passers by. In India the beggar sticks his hand at you from out of your car window.