Good friends are like rare gems

I've heard it said that good friends are like good wine - both get better as they grow older. Not that this friend that I have in mind is old or anything, but you get the point, don't you?

I think the first time we saw each other - more than six years ago - was when another friend of mine brought her to my office. I remember the bright face, the intelligent eyes, and a big, warm smile. It was not exactly a meeting, because after smiling and flinging a "Hi" at each other, we went our ways. But within a short period of time, we caught on really well, and very soon were chatting away for hours on the phone or the Net. It was an exciting time for me, because I was quite dumb, without any worldly experience to speak of, and she had already switched jobs twice (or more, I'm not sure), and so I could learn quite a few things from her. I was always in awe of the fact that she celebrated life like no one else I knew then did. She wasn't afraid of many things, and you could trust her to speak her mind, damn the consequences; I admired that. At the same time, she knew when to hold herself back too. I remember one glorious Music Season at Madras when she, myself and another friend had a whale of a time listening to Indian Classical Music.

Her marriage was a happy occasion, with tons of friends and relatives. She met married life in the same way that she did anything: with gusto! Her husband turned out to be a terrific match, with a love of good life that equalled hers. I've watched with quiet happiness as they more or less waltzed through their years of marriage, now with a trip to Africa, and then a trip to Australia (her husband is the classic "Travelling Salesman").

The first time I visited their home in Bombay was three years after I moved to Pune. But I enjoyed the trip thoroughly as it gave me a good opportunity to get to know her husband better. We went shopping, and had a lovely multi-cuisine dinner where I, as usual, almost made a fool of myself ordering an extra cup of ghee. Her husband saved me from the embarrassing situation I would have been in by cancelling it quickly! And the second time I visited them (this time on my bike), I made a mistake while coming back, which has now led to her calling me her "backtracker friend"! :-)

She may not be perfect, and may have faults that are all her own. But she's dear to me, because she's one of my best friends.

P.S.: Today is not the world friendship day or anything. In fact, I hate such "special" days. I celebrate friendship whenever I feel like it.

That thing you do

I was recently thinking about why people do the things they do, and it occurred to me that the reasons are not too many. I could think of the following as possible causes for people to act at all:

1. The thought that what they do will give them happiness
2. The thought that what they do will give somebody else happiness (this is actually not entirely true, and I'll come back to it in a moment)
3. The thought that what they do will give others pain. Sadists you may identify with this ;-) Actually, this also points back to 1 above, because the deeper motive for causing hurt to others is a (wrong) notion that that will give them happiness.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that there can be no more significant reasons than our own happiness that impels us to act in this world; reasons 2 and 3 mentioned above are really only special instances of reason 1.

Indian Weddings

"Traditional" Indian (Hindu) weddings are such a waste of time, effort and money. The parents of the bride and the groom go to great lengths to make sure that the event is grand (a substantial part of their savings goes into it) and yet, comments about how some things weren't simply up to the mark are inevitable. I'm sure most people know this, but they are so incredibly stuck to their traditions that they wouldn't dare do anything simpler.

I couldn't help observing at my cousin's wedding recently that people speak expected lines like "the food was great" (positive comment shared with others); and "the event was good, but the girl's father didn't even receive me" (negative comment shared with other gossipers) - as if it was a breach of conduct on the part of the girl's father if he didn't personally receive the thousand-odd people who pour in. In a huge gathering like this, it's virtually impossible to satisfy everybody, and yet, people insist on doing it.

A friend of mine was planning to get his marriage performed in the Arya Samaj style - where the priest / priestess chants mantras and explains their meanings to the assembled audience (after politely requesting them to remain silent when the ceremony starts). His bride-to-be was enthusiastic about the idea as well, but the parents of both put up a strong objection and said, with extreme contempt, "People of our caste don't do such things," as if simplicity was a sin, and any suggestion about spending less money was blasphemy. It is ironical that Arya Samaj weddings, which are generally known for their adherence to Vedic rites, are considered taboo among the Brahmin community.

Will we ever stop being hypocrites and blind followers of half-baked traditions?

Ayn Rand and her philosophy - a different perspective

Ayn Rand came into my life - through her writings - about five years ago. I've read two of her most influential books - Fountainhead and Atlast Shrugged more than once, and each time I've been left gasping at the tremendous concepts that she has brought almost single-handedly into this world. I've also started reading her essays on The Virtue of Selfishness. Somewhere along the line though, my love for her ideas started becoming less blind, as I began to recognise, through my own experiences and reflections, as well as articles like this, that her philosophy was not flawless; that there were certain realities that Objectivism did not, and still does not, explain satisfactorily.

Imagine my surprise a couple of years ago when I came to know that there was a guy called Nathaniel Branden; that he was a close personal and intellectual associate of Rand; that he was a clinical psychologist; that after many years of association with her, he broke up with her; and it came to be disclosed that they were having an affair all the while!

Branden, the young man who idolised Rand from a very young age, had a fall-out with her that was as painful as his association was rewarding. One of the consequences of their split was that Branden started looking at Rand and her work in a less forgiving, and more critical, light. More importantly, he began to understand, given his background in psychology, how some aspects of Rand's philosophy could do more harm than good. Briefly, these are the things that he objected to:

• Encouraging repression ("A clash between mind and emotions is a clash between two assessments, one of which is conscious, the other might not be. It is not invariably the case that the conscious assessment is superior to the subconscious one; that needs to be checked out.")
• Encouraging moralizing ("I don't know of anyone other than the Church fathers in the Dark Ages who used the word "evil" quite so often as Ayn Rand.")
• Conflating sacrifice and benevolence ("I am referring to the principle of benevolence, mutual helpfulness and mutual aid between human beings. I believe it is a virtue to support life. I believe it is a virtue to assist those who are struggling for life. I believe it is a virtue to seek to alleviate suffering. None of this entails the notion of self-sacrifice.")
• Overemphasizing the role of philosophical premises ("Among the many unfortunate consequences of believing that we are the product only of our premises and that our premises are chiefly the product of the thinking we have done or failed to do is a powerful inclination, on the one hand, to regard as immoral anyone who arrives at conclusions different from our own, and, on the other hand, an inclination to believe that people who voice the same beliefs as we do are people with whom we naturally have a lot in common.")

The complete article offers a detailed insight from a man who's still an Objectivist at heart, though an enlightened one, and without many of the shortcomings that Rand had, but never admitted. An interesting read for anyone, I think.

Related Article

Nathaniel Branden interview - snippet

The following is an excerpt from an interview with Nathaniel Branden, long-time associate of Ayn Rand, the original Objectivist.

Personal Reflections

Q: What's the biggest lesson you've learned so far in life?

Branden: I'd like to say, first of all, I hate being confined to the single most important thing. Can I mention two?

Q: Okay, what are the two most important things you've learned?

Branden: Let yourself know and fully experience how important love is and honor that importance in your actions. Don't ever be careless with love. Be aware of the preciousness of each moment of your existence. Be aware that none of us is immortal -- the clock is always ticking and none of us knows how long any of us has got. The time to let that other person experience how loved and valued he or she is by us, is right now. It's one thing to love -- and quite another to have the wisdom and courage to live that love fully, unreservedly, and to the hilt. Fully to surrender to love can be terrifying, but it's the price life asks of us in exchange for the possibility of ecstasy.

Q: And your second message to the world?

Branden: Don't deny or disown what you see or experience merely because you can't explain it, justify it, or fit it into some familiar frame-of-reference. Allow a large space in your psyche to accommodate ambiguity and uncertainty. Don't invent explanations prematurely just so you can tell yourself you have the universe all tied up in one neat package. Keep your eyes open, keep observing, and be confident that sooner or later the truth will appear to you, providing, of course, you live long enough. And if you don't, well, hasn't it been an interesting adventure anyway?

Related Article

L.I.F.E.

I felt, for the first time, that I knew what Ayn Rand might have meant when she said something like, "Man must make a choice between life and death every moment of his life." I was sitting at home, eating my lunch when I felt, not for the first time, that I couldn't quite justify my existence; that my daily routine was simply a trick to avoid facing the fact that I had no clue as to what I was supposed to be doing with the rest of my life; that I was merely leading the life of an aimless automaton.

Am I to feel happy about that new program that I saw on the Net the other day? Am I to jump up and down, excited about a white-water rafting trip that I've been contemplating for some time now, and the invitation for which landed in my mailbox today? Am I to feel thrilled about my planned participation in a tennis state-level tournament in January with my neighbour? Or am I to shut the hell up and "just live", as many well-wishers have asked me to?

I don't know. And by not knowing, my torpid state continues unchallenged.

Sick of "on-site"

These days, it seems that all a colleague can ask you in the course of a discussion about one's job is, "Any on-site chances?" Now, that makes me not only sick but angry as hell! I mean, come on guys, success in a career is not dependent upon the number of times you travel outside your country.

Just for the record, I really like travelling and would love to see new places, people, etc., but that doesn't mean that I am dying to go on-site if the work there is not something I'd enjoy doing. And I won't certainly threaten to quit if I'm not sent on-site; I've got a little bit of professionalism left!

We all join companies with the basic premise that there's going to be something interesting for us to do. Apparently, that's not so for certain people: for them, "it's all money, honey!" One of the main reasons they want to go abroad is the opportunity to add significantly - by way of foreign currency - to their monthly earnings. Yuck! It stinks, and sickens me. I even wonder at times whether I am dirtying myself by being in the same industry as these self-cheapened people. Maybe I should move on elsewhere...

Exhilaration!

The wind whistles by; the constant rain hammers against your helmet; your bike purrs steadily, and the miles pass by quickly; the bike handles solid; the mountain roads you traverse are green, picturesque; it's sheer exhilaration. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that you would trade this experience for. Some of the motorists that you pass by look at you; admiration is recorded on some of their faces as they see the gleaming beauty that's your bike. You notice it with quiet pride; you now know for sure that performance is not the only thing that attracted you to this bike in the first place - the looks took you in too.

Shattering beliefs

No, I don't mean any beliefs of mine that could shatter you. I mean "shattering" as a gerund (go look it up if you don't know what a gerund is). You know something about some people you know that you want to tell them (they're close to you), but telling them would prove disastrous to them, especially if they accept it. Or, you know that their deepest beliefs are based on an edifice of irrationality - which they're unable to see for themselves - and you are loath to destroying their feeling of safety and comfort in those beliefs. What do you do at such times?

Am I asocial, or just a freak?

I'm trying to figure out if I am losing it. I am unable to have a casual conversation even with acquaintances, leave alone strangers. I dread going to parties because I am tongue-tied. It doesn't help that I don't drink or smoke, and so can't "loosen" up. When people make small talk in parties, I just can't seem to understand what the point is. And when people tell me there isn't any, that just adds to the confusion. Even when I'm with real close friends, I find myself tongue-tied, and it's only with certain people that I seem to be able to talk at all. The saving grace is that I am a patient listener; though I don't contribute much to conversations, I let the talkers feel that they have a captive audience.

On the other hand, I "converse" rather well with people when I am on-line, i.e., when I am logged on to one of the instant messengers - Yahoo, MSN, Google Talk. In fact, I am much more communicative through e-mail. So much so that one of my friends once remarked that it'd be much better if I just remain an e-mail friend.

What's wrong with me? Am I asocial, anti-social, or just plain weird? Because shyness doesn't seem to make the cut. Or maybe these symptoms mean nothing at all?