Doctors vs Engineers

Indian parents see these two are the only two professions they want their children in. I thought it would be fun to compare these two as well.
So what are the differences - for doctors the duration of the course is much larger, but then again you hardly find any qualified doctor come unemployed slowdown or recession or whatever. For doctors the effort during the course is much more intense than in engineering colleges. Doctors get more respect in the society than engineers - they apparently are in a noble profession and they save lives.  Lets face it - there are too many engineers around, being a computer engineer is the most ridiculous cliché for an Indian now.
So why is this so and why is it that there are still more people rushing to engineering colleges than to a medical school ? Well firstly, the seats are much less - so getting into a reasonable medical school is a herculean task. Also the investment needed in terms of money, time and effort may be much more. Another thing is that the students who simply do not have much brains can somehow survive engineering but surviving medical school without a brain sounds much more improbable. So the reason for this is obvious - engineers baring a select few working on the most critical projects are not working on something as critical as a person's life. So they can afford to have relatively incompetent people in the team but incompetent doctors are much more risky.
About the pay I guess its the whole demand and supply thing - what doctors do has been made into a obscure knowledge and common people are not supposed to treat themselves or others. While in case of engineering everyone will give it a shot, we have mechanical and chemical engineers getting into software development and we have commerce graduates as well. Soon enough we will have secondary school drop outs trying their hand at it perhaps !! Another thing is the work hours. The dearth of qualified doctors makes it necessary to overwork the few ones around. While engineers would do a 50 hour week 70 for a doctor is not very rare. So obviously they need to be compensated for their longer hours.
The thing is more about what you are good at, I think money, social standing, personal life, peace of mind or stability are important and as long as you take care of them in some moderation you should go for one more thing without which everything else don't add up to much - it is whether you love it. If you love it and are good at something then only can you respect yourself and without which the rest don't mean much at all.

Congress and India

I have tried largely to keep this forum a pace for intellectual debate and avoided politics, but more importantly it is a forum for things I feel strongly about, so I will deviate from this practice this one time. In fact, I started with writing a status on my Facebook page and decided this warranted a more laborious effort.

I have never been a big fan of 'Mahatma' Gandhi and similarly, by consequence of that choice, of the Congress. I, like a large number of Indians, have a feeling of resentment for the fact that Gandhi made us come out as a nation of ultra pacifists to the point of looking more like beggars with his brand of Satyagraha politics. I do feel that leaders like Sardar Patel, Subhash Chandra Bose should have had a bigger say in shaping the future of  India. From how the events unfolded, and the way that Gandhi-Nehru family has dominated the political scene for most of the time, it feels that India has been under the rule of a clan and makes one wonder how much better it is for us to be under their rule instead of our erstwhile colonial masters.

The only alternative I have seen (other than Janata Dal in the late 70s and 80s) is BJP. Hailing from Bengal, I find Left, with their focus on arresting any possible development, a despicable set of people. The BJP was obviously seen as a ray of new hope by Indians and hence given the vote during 1998-2004 under the leadership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee (ABV). As I look at it, India is a country with tremendous potential which was born some 60 odd years back. The problem was that being immature, having never governed a country before, the leaders did make some obvious mistakes and obviously have had members who are corrupt. Sadly, a political establishment with no corruption is not a realistic dream and a leader giving us that remains something to be seen only in Bollywood movies. The problem is not that Indians are more corruptible and so we end up having the more corrupt leaders, it is the simple fact that man at his worst is an asshole and he tends to take advantage of very opportunity to do any evil he can get away with. The problem is that somehow this mechanism to prosecute such worst of men has been a total failure. More realistically, I think having an establishment in which the major leaders are not corrupt and do not allow their juniors open ground for corruption and punishment for those stupid/unlucky enough to be caught is a fairly reasonable demand. With the way voting goes on and the multi-party system - coalition politics come into play and to a cynical mind it kind of legalizes presence of some corruption. Given that, I have seen that there were scandals a plenty during the BJP or rather NDA (the BJP led coalition) rule but these do not compare to the ones we have seen in the recent years with the Congress led UPA coalition. Also, interesting point to note is that the strong mandate Congress received made them less feeble to the whims of their partners. Still, we have seen the Hon. MMS looking the other way as the country is being plundered. I do believe that if it was only some junior minister from a coalition partner, things would have been different. I would not say that MMS benefited from the scams but then again he is more of a front to the matriarch of the Gandhi family.

Mythological Analogies

The more traditional and religious among us deeply believe in mythological tales literally. This, to the educated mind, is a rather difficult thing to do. As we see yes or no as the only two options, we tend to choose not to believe in our history, the way it is told. I seek to find a third way, a way made of reasoning and not merely trying to make choices.

I agree, in the way things are shown - arrows multiplying to 20 times, people flying etc., they are  not believable. Brushing aside everything is a mistake I would not do either - for what reason is there for people to write these epic tales in jest. They say that  truth is stranger than fiction and these tales are so complex and full of strange occurrences that it would seem more probable that they are the renditions of actual happenings rather than figments of someone's imagination. And there are too many half evidences to support these tales for them to be not true.

The thing most people don't realize is that there is a third answer, a more realistic and sensible interpretation of all these tales. For example there is mention of things like Brahma Astra, the description of which fits the modern day atomic bombs. In fact the descriptions mention of widespread environmental damage, infertility among people,  land being rendered barren etc. It seems more destructive than the atom bombs modern science has given to us yet. Most probably this refers to a fusion based atomic bomb. Similarly the relatively less powerful Indra Astra seems more to match in description to the modern day atom bomb. The description of ultimate warriors, archers hitting an arrow that multiplies manifold would perhaps be more likely be something like a automatic firing weapon possibly similar to ones we have today. Reference to warriors chanting divine words to summon these weapons is something similar to voice activation or perhaps even remote controlled delivery of missiles. When they speak of a Guru giving his favorite pupil these weapons, it smacks of a similarity to modern day nuclear proliferation. When the tales speak of immaculate conception with the sage giving the princess his fruit, it probably is just an attempt at censorship gone real bad.

The tales are enormous and the impossibilities described in them are countless as well, there is hardly any reason to justify such an enormous effort. It is suffice to say that there are many that we can find analogies to modern achievements, for the rest perhaps modern science has still a long way to go. It is easy to accept things blindly, easier still to reject them as unbelievable but hardest to uncover the true meaning of things.
I see it more as a case of the meaning of words being lost over the years.

Selfless

However much we may want to deny it, but fact remains that man is mostly a selfish creature and human relationships under all the sugar coating and emotional melodrama, are made of selfish intentions primarily. We may say that we love/care about our friends and family, but is it not for some gain or the other always! I won't go into how each of these relationships are for gain - we all know other than the rare exceptions there are sufficient reasons for our love. I tend to not take into account relationships we are born into - i.e. our family. I think trying to evaluate them is somewhat unfair and unrealistic. That being said, I am not saying that each of us has a sinister side that schemes and plots behind relationships on how to exploit them for gains. It is something that we do sub-consciously and often do not realize. So, basically, man is not structured to be selfless towards other people.

Life is the most complex thing there can be and as in all things relating to life in general, there is an exception - a 'but'. There are relationships from which we do not expect anything and in fact after a while we just want to give our everything to it. There are not many people who can claim to having such a relationship - and a person with even one such relationship should consider himself to be very lucky. The feeling you get from a selfless relationship is happiness that doesn't need anything to go your way or for you to gain in any way. You are happy just because the person exists and that there is a bond between you. It doesn't even need the person on the other end to reciprocate. Funnily enough, as mushy as this sounds - it doesn't have to be love. It can also be a platonic friendship too !!

This piece, unlike all my other pieces, doesn't seek to arrive at a solution for a problem or to convey my ideals  or philosophy. It is more of a celebration and acknowledgment of my good fortune on having such a relationship :)

First love

Ever the naive hopeless romantic, I have always believed that love happens once and so the term first love tends to not make much sense for men like me. Now I realize that it does and if you use rationale (which I am always accused of employing too often) you see why it is so. There are probably very few who do not want to attain their first love but it is the lucky few who can. For all others there is no other choice but to take the plunge again.
Whatever may happen the first love remains special - perhaps it is because it was the first time that we see  imperfections in someone as more dear to us than all things perfect. We believe sub-consciously that he/she is the most amazingly special and unique person. Sadly it is somewhat exaggerated perhaps and somewhat of an illusion as we discover one day when we fall in love again. Perhaps, at a sub conscious level, the impression forever remains and, whoever may come into our lives subsequently, we cannot manage to remove that first impression on our hearts making the first love hard to forget or transcend.

I have a similar example to give but it being related to sci-fi and robots will spoil the mood.. so I will refrain from telling it and end this here :)

Being good

Why does society expect us to be good at all times. Shouldn't there be a reason and a choice? I think this chain of thought is quite analogous to Ayn Rand's theory of objectivism but somewhat different. I am not saying that man has a right to think of himself and only himself. I personally think Rand is right logically but I am still queasy about seeing a world in which every man is following this line of thought. That is not exactly the issue. The issue is co existence. Assuming that Rand's wish is granted and man is allowed to be selfish (which he is in any case practically this day), we will see that people will have ill will towards the elite, the powerful who choose to be "selfish". They are expected to be "good" in the sense of helping the ones fallen behind, being polite, compassionate, charitable and what not. But the burning question is why ?!! Why should these things be expected from anyone. I mean the whole issue is that when getting something you don't deserve, you need to be humble. You cannot expect compassion just hope for it and appreciate if it comes your way. That is sadly lacking more and more in society and expecting things without deserving them is growing rampant.

Fighting

Fighting is inevitable and unavoidable - so I won't talk about that. I will instead muse on how to deal with these fights. We try to but cannot completely avoid developing differences with our friends and others occasionally but if we are reasonable in dealing with them, we can avoid making enemies and much of the hatred that follows. As far as I know, for most people - the idea is not to create troubles for others - we are too self centred to think about others even in this capacity. All we want is to make sure that there is not even a small dent in our ego. So we won't back out of a fight, rather like in a game of cards- we see the last bet and raise the bar a little. This can be somewhat contained if one of the people involved shows some restrain, but in cases when this doesn't happen situation worsens. So we basically have a self sustaining process - the escalation of fight. 
Another major problem is when you cannot restrict contact. There are situations which force people to work together or be together even when they hate each others' guts. In other cases limiting contact can lead to gradual cooling of tensions, but if that is not possible reverse happens - every act of your adversary seems to be against you, mocking you and is an irritant, as such enmity increases. The problem is there is no solution.. without expecting one of the people involved to show restraint which by most people is seen as cowardice. 
So yeah, I don't have any solution to the problem; just pointed out some obvious points 

Why I hate fervently Apple

For me Apple a few years back was a company that made premium laptops and music players and stood for impeccable quality. Thus I invested in a MacBook. Though it would be somewhat unfair to base on opinion on one personal experience but my experience with the machine was by far pathetic. It broke within 3 months, repaired easily but broke again after 3 months again (never to be repaired- well not for the next 15 months - the local apple store here in Columbus, USA refusing to repair it). Both times afflicting me with the loss of my precious data. Now that made me look at Apple as a company in a negative shade.
Now whatever be the reason of my change in outlook, I have found reasons aplenty to hate apple. Firstly the products are ridiculously overpriced - even admitting the fact that the quality is better does not make it reasonable for them to be so exorbitant. Then I realized that while Microsoft is painted as the villain and sued for "anti-competitive practices" for bundling their media player with Windows. It is disturbing that at the same time no one objects to the fact that Apple does not allow any other browser other than Safari for iPod Touch / iPhone devices and that it fucking limits the users to use AT&T mobile service. How can that be acceptable. Either buy a AT&T connection or pay 500-600$ more for an iPhone !!
Other than that not many people (other than the few sane ones) realize that iPhone is nothing but a glam toy. Their fan following is gathering cult proportions now, people saying they would buy anything that is sold by apple are plenty and it is very worrying to see how a corporate can mind control so many people. Their taking for granted this mass following is becoming more apparent with the launch of iPad. iPad is the most pathetic device sold for such a price. I mean if it were a very basic device for $200-300 it might make some sense to think of buying it. But there is obviously nothing innovative about it, just increasing the screen size of an iPhone and removing calling and camera functionalities. Added to that it comes for $500-900. Do they even think before charging for something.. why should anyone pay $900 for a shitty device that doesn't allow multi-tasking - why not buy a laptop instead. And how is it that other companies are able to provide a much much better product for a much lesser price. Yes I am mainly talking about the Adam device by notion-ink. Notion ink is a new company - a startup so it is somewhat unfair to compare them to apple but the sad part is no other decent well recognized company is standing up to face Apple and make a good tablet device.

COME OUT OF THIS EVIL SPELL AND DO NOT BUY APPLE !! TILL THEY SELL YOU SOMETHING SENSIBLE

Confidence Levels

I just realized there are three major levels of confidence. Given that - the funny thing is that no one actually resides in the one of the groups per se. People are always in between two levels. For me I won't say I ever was at level one but not quite at level two. Recently with more exposure, I seem to be progressing towards level three having reached level two comfortably.
First is actually non - existence of any confidence. This is when you know something but do not have the ability to convey it. You may be able to convey it to a kind ear - to a friend or when not under the glare of an expecting audience. Anxiety besets such people when forced to address a group and they fail to convey their ideas in a comprehendible manner.
The second level is the one most people belong close to, the better ones above it and the not so good ones below it. People in this level do not fear the group or audience. They believe that they are worth the group's time. The problem (actually not a problem, its pretty rational) is that they need to have something to share to be able to speak with confidence. So if you tell a computer engineer to address a group of management folk about a technology aspect - he might be very comfortable with the subject and not feel any pressure in facing the crowd. But if he is told to talk to the same crowd about his knowledge on investment opportunities, he will feel queasy. Or for that matter, it depends on the type of crowd too. So, if the same guy be told to talk about the same technology aspect but to a group of superior scientist, he might get a little queasy.
The third level is the power of indifference. The people here are either the most influential / powerful and occasionally the most absurd / obnoxious ones. They have a reasonless confidence. The only reason for their confidence is being themselves. They do not care if they know anything about the topic they are speaking. As long as they have their confidence they can speak or do anything, be as outrageous as they deem fit or useful. Such are the people who do most unreasonable things as they seem to have that sense of owning the world around them. Then again without such people there aren't many others who can take charge of a situation and manage things. Fact is there can be no single super human who can be right about everything and hence have that capability to lead all the people at all times. Since there is still a need for such a leader these people who are correct most of the time are the best bet. Basically they represent most of the elite class in any society and those who said 'the meek shall inherit the earth' haven't really met one of these folks.

Understanding

I have seen that reason and patience are generally enough to help understand almost any situation and solve any problem(s) arising out of it. That being said, there is one factor that we don't perhaps give enough importance - your interest in the matter at hand. We being imperfect are not supposed to function perfectly at any thing, so though reason and patience are tools enough for the job and assuming that the person in question has plenty of both - it is still sometimes not enough. The reason being that people fail to apply them. When there is a matter in which you are affected - there is a sense of fear which lets you see the worst of the situation and there is a sense of desire that makes you look at the most improbabable of possibilities. Thus reason is clouded by emotion. I guess there is nothing new or innovative about the idea - just that I experienced it first hand and it dawned on me that emotions enfeeble the reasoning in the best of us and no one can escape from this.

Why Rise Of China Is A Cause For Global Worries

I am one of those people wary of China's unrelenting march towards unopposed power. I won't say that I was among the first to notice and recognize the magnanimity of the occuring, but I did when I did. China has been under the global glare for decades regarding it's pathetic disregard to basic human rights and the subordination of personal freedom over what has been allegedly claimed as national interest. Earlier this was not a cause for concern or alarm at least since it did not affect anyone outside of China. Now it has changed, China is not going to remain isolated anymore. It has gathered a large amount of wealth over the years through efficiency in production and somewhat through misuse of it's people. However they might have reached the current state, fact is that they are now the biggest financial power and soon will be the greatest military power if not already so. And with this they are now spending it to build for them the best infrastructure possible. China is not lacking in any kind of resources - labor, minerals or skilled workforce. As such there is hardly any way of anyone overtaking them, India may have been smug about being the IT hub for the past 15 years but they never translated that opportunity to getting something big. India to this day remains an inferior state to Europe/American countries in terms of power, wealth and quality of life. China on the other hand is making some cities that good enough to shame the biggest cities across the developed world. This whole thing is fine.

The problem with the rise of China is that with it increases their influence and with this the developed western countries(and others as well)are left behind. Now as we all know that the record of China w.r.t. treating people humanely is very poor. The world follows the example of the leader, and as China takes over the mantle of the sole superpower in the coming decade or so, these other countries might be influenced to follow the lead of China. As such the  I fear a chain reaction leading to subordination of the individual to the state will become commonplace and 'acceptable' and lead to the formation of a draconian society world wide. For India specially as China becomes powerful, its 'friend' Pakistan might be helped to stand on it's feet again - which is a cause of concern to India. History has proved that Pakistan is obsessed with enimity against India and the more strength they or their friends gain make them more capable to do so unhindered. All this paints a very gloomy picture for the world over the next two decades or so.

Under the yoke of the past

`Why is there so much discrimination in this world? There are obviously people who seek to gain from them. But this is of course not the intent that can be put forward when you want the society to accept this as a policy. The intent is that we as human beings seek to find ways to predict and make the choices most probable to be good for us. We are not machines and as such we like to make reasonable (though often inaccurate) guesses. This is why if a certain sect feels that they have in the past being wronged by another one - they tend to treat people belonging to the rival sect as their rivals. The presumption is not too unreasonable - going by statistics and history there is a reasonable probability of their premonition being true. But what they do not see is that how much unfair it is to the ones in whose case this calculation was wrong. There are ones that do not seek to harm them or their sect - even though this may be a good probability. There is a popular principle in law - let a hundred accused go unpunished rather than punish an innocent one. This principle is certainly not followed here.

This is analogous to the case of a person with a bad past. As he has done something wrong in the past - we tend to believe in the worst of him and not give him a chance. We have this weird dilemma. We need to protect ourselves and as we cannot know for sure whether to trust this person or not - we do the best thing possible for our defence. We predict based on prior behaviour of the person. This is perhaps the best defence strategy and hence justified. But in being just to ourselves - we are being unjust to the other person. We do not give him a chance to make amends, to change his ways. If we continue to mistrust him there is not way that the person can reform.

There is this human side to all things as well. It is of course up to us whether we want to be humane or not. I go by the principle - do not expect from others what you do not give them yourselves. To believe in an entity which rules above all forms of reason / logic and number - the heart. I cannot say believe in the best of everyone (it takes a Buddhist to do that) but do not shut down anyone just because logic says so. If there is an attempt by the person to make amends and if he is lucky enough that we feel his conviction we should give him another chance. Perhaps being still cautious is our duty to ourselves but give another chance where we get that feeling from the inside. That is being human and I would prefer that to any increased probability of making correct choices!

Pillars of happiness shaken

What do we need to be happy? Its different things for different people.. money, love, beauty, success, family, career, etc. Most people (who are not downright miserable with their lives) manage to be ensconced with whatever they have in their lives. These things are akin to pillars in our lives and they bring us happiness - they are perhaps the pillars of happiness in our lives. There are still many demands, dreams and misgivings from life but we tend to take the things we have for granted. We find it inconceivable to imagine a world without the the support of these pillars. These provide us something greater than physical comforts, the comfort of having our desires fulfilled - of having the things that matter to us. But there are times when a drastic event may take away something that forms an integral part of our lives - the death of a loved one, financial loses, loss of self-respect, losing a job, health, fights in the family etc.. Again it can be different things for different people .. it is the loss of someone or something that holds dear importance in our lives.
We being insignificant beings eventually come to terms with the fact that there is nothing we can do about the event and that the happening could not be controlled and continuing is the only option. This is very normal. But there are a few unlucky souls who are haunted by a sense of guilt. The problem is that in bad times most people seek to find reasons for the problem. Some find it easy to blame fate for it and use this to practice a whole bunch of stupid superstitions. Then there are a few who tend to blame others and seek vengeance for it. The third and perhaps the most unfortunate kind are the ones who blame themselves - there is no struggle when you are punishing yourself and as such the impasse continues and sense of guilt grows.

What we need to look at is that as the problems in life are not mechanical - there can be no factual answer to the question of who or what is responsible for them. In most cases there can be no correct answer and so we cannot know the answer.
We imagine different combinations of events and try to find one that would prevent the loss of our dear one/possession. So eventually all the ifs and thens that we may think up during this desperate act of imaging a solution we come up with nothing meaningful. The simple reason being that life is not based on logic - some things are too complex to be governed by rules or logic.
If we feel that there is something in us that could have lead to such a loss - we should seek to remove it. That is our responsibility. We do not need to lose something to do that - the sad part is that most times these losses make us take a closer look at ourselves and this is when we realize our follies. So instead of blaming our follies for the loss we suffer - we should seek to make amends and be happy that with the loss came a small gain. Live life in a constructive manner and life will grow new buds to replace the fallen flowers.

Musings on relationships - V

Is there a right time for love is the question. Does it in any way help if you are in a good position in your life when you meet the special someone for you. Will it be any different if you met the same person when you are not in the best of your times. The obvious answer is it shouldn't matter but we know it does. It does matter whether the times you meet your soulmate things are favorable for your relationship. Love like all things strong is not invincible. It sometimes needs a bit of help as well. But that was very obvious. The other question is does the right time make you like someone you would not have liked otherwise. I mean if you are happy with everthing in life or feel the need for a companion - does it make it easier to like any person in such times? I am afraid it does at times and it is a very sad thing that it does. Good times and other factors are supposed to be just catalysts and not change anything - specially not the person you like. If it does it is not a catalyst and so the product coming out of it is not love.

Musings on relationships - IV

The problem in life lies in the fact that everything that makes perfect sense in theory is a nightmare to apply in practice, more so for relationships. Relationships are perhaps the more complex entities to understand as they involve the interaction and depend on the random behaviour of all people involved. Making it hard to understand or predict anything going on objectively. Also nothing in life happens in a controlled isolated environment, there are a million things going on in parallel which affect the matter we are looking at.
Whatever any popular/widely accepted sayings may say, to love someone doesn't mean to have him/her through any means - you need to preserve the respect of your partner as well as yourself. Like I said earlier, when we are thinking of our relationships and trying to make them work, there are other forces at play which make the reactions of everyone/everything we do so unpredictable. There is that communication barrier which exists even between the most connected pair of people. So what do we do? Also there are limits and weaknesses that we succumb to often, impatience and that urge to do something we know is not sensible/right. Specially when it comes to matters of the heart, we find it hard to listen to logic (in the rare occasion that we can see the logic). 

How much is too much when it comes to working for relationships or for love? Once we have done everything in our power to convince the other of our love - do we still go on? Perhaps not, for we need to have a mutual passion in any relationship, there needs to be a response from the other too. 

If there is no response after that, then perhaps it is better to brace yourself, control those urges (to do just that last bit more to make it work somehow) and rather be alone. And more importantly accept the fact that there may be other facts which we are clueless about and so making any irrevocable stand is perhaps not sensible.

Agnosticism & Passiveness

Agnosticism as an ideology is non confrontational. Does that make agnostics cowards? I don't think so, fact is that they are rather more rational in every action they take. They avoid any confrontation for the sake of confrontation, and have the sense to preserve their energy for the battles that matter. So if cricket doesn't matter to me I will just be passive about any comments/actions of people around me with respect to it. I won't debate if someone says Sachin is over-hyped or anything that sounds stupid or is disputable. But the idea that agnostics are passive is not irrational either. To be agnostic about certain things is obviously sensible, but as living beings we need to be passionate about certain (self-chosen) things - music, movies, sports, politics, business, education or whatever appeals to us. As a human being if there is no passion on any matter, then it does make such a person very non-alive. We need to be leaders in our right, how successful we are is inconsequential - but the attempt to lead people in the area we are good at and/or interested in is the basic responsibility of everyone. Everything innovative and productive has it's root in the passion of someone. It is therefore our responsibility to try to give something back to the world through our passion.
I realized this because I noticed that I am agnostic in terms of religion, sports perhaps, music to a little extent and many other things and I am very vocal in expressing my opinion about other things .. funny though it may sound -these include grammar, politics, respect for women, cooking and manners. I was happy to realize that I am not an agnostic in all matters - just in matters I chose to be inconsequential to me

Sustaining Love

Some thoughts I found somewhere - not mine but worth sharing.

Every relationship has a cycle...In the beginning; you fall in love with your partner. You anticipate their calls, want their touch, and like their idiosyncrasies. Falling in love wasn't hard. In fact, it was a completely natural and spontaneous experience. You didn't have to DO anything. That's why it's called "falling" in love. 

People in love sometimes say, "I was swept of my feet." Picture the expression. It implies that you were just standing there; doing nothing, and then something happened TO YOU. Falling in love is a passive and spontaneous experience. But after a few months or years of being together, the euphoria of love fades. It's a natural cycle of EVERY relationship. Slowly but surely, phone calls become a bother (if they come at all), touch is not always welcome (when it happens), and your spouse's idiosyncrasies, instead of being cute, drive you nuts. The symptoms of this stage vary with every relationship; you will notice a dramatic difference between the initial stage when you were in love and a much duller or even angry subsequent stage. At this point, you and/or your partner might start asking, "Am I with the right person?" And as you reflect on the euphoria of the love you once had, you may begin to desire that experience with someone else. This is when relationships breakdown.

The key to succeeding in a relationship is not finding the right person; it's learning to love the person you found.

People blame their partners for their unhappiness and look outside for fulfilment. Extramarital fulfilment comes in all shapes and sizes. Infidelity is the most common. But sometimes people turn to work, a hobby, a friendship, excessive TV, or abusive substances. But the answer to this dilemma does NOT lie outside your relationship. It lies within it. I'm not saying that you couldn't fall in love with someone else. You could. And TEMPORARILY you'd feel better. But you'd be in the same situation a few years later. Because (listen carefully to this): The key to succeeding in a relationship is not finding the right person; it's learning to love the person you found.

SUSTAINING love is not a passive or spontaneous experience. You have to work on it day in and day out. It takes time, effort, and energy. And most importantly, it demands WISDOM. You have to know WHAT TO DO to make it work. Make no mistake about it. Love is NOT a mystery. There are specific things you can do (with or without your partner). Just as there are physical laws of the universe (such as gravity), there are also laws for relationships. If you know and apply these laws, the results are predictable. 

Love is therefore a "decision". Not just a feeling. 

Working hard for love

They say 'All is fair in love and war'. I will leave the war part for politicians and their bosses. When it comes to love, how much is too much? I agree (almost completely) that all is fair as long as it applies to a third person. But think of yourself and the object of your affection in a different light. You don't want to lose all your self respect / pride even for love - if for no other reason, for the reason that it is very difficult / nigh impossible to love someone without any self esteem. In the case of the one you love, you don't want to leave any stone unturned to convince him/her of your love but in the end you don't want to con someone into thinking they love you. You want to let them make a decision on their own.

How funny is it that the most complex issues have the simplest and most fundamental logic in their solutions. We all have heard of the sand in the hand bit. Same applies to love - the one issue that we agree has been persistently a mystery to all. I do not say I have the magic formula for all problems love related or even an understanding of all issues but if we remember the story of the sand in the hand we can do better.

Why so few Agnostics?

Agnosticism is more about keeping the temperature in control and being not hot headed about your idealogies regarding things which do not by your volition matter - it is not just about religion. I can be agnostic to rock music, technology, politics or whatever if I fell disinclined to give any importance to. So obviously recruiting for agnostics is a paradox like fighting for peace. It may be said that my musings are also a feeble attempt at recruitment of agnostics - not really, they are more intended for awareness and to pen my own ideas/thoughts.
Now then how do agnostics come into being then, because they are not recruited nor are they born into. They are born in the correct way actually - by their calling. In fact so low is the knowledge of the principles of agnosticism that many with an agnostic bent of mind are not aware of it and go on to be practising theists. This is not a desirable thing but it is better than going on a recruitment binge - for it will be against the core principle and ideologies.

Vanity v/s Pride

Oft repeated topic I guess but one that still hasn't lost it's importance or necessity as there is still widespread ignorance on the matter. We acknowledge that vanity and pride are difficult to distinguish. When you see a person it is very easy to see his pride as vanity - the simple reason is we as a species are a sceptical bunch. We at times see the most pessimistic possibility and believe it to be a fact. This is well known to anyone who has read Jane Austen's 'Pride and Prejudice'. In the book the female protagonist sees the pride of the male protagonist in his conduct as conceit and vanity. It is through luck that she sees the true character and they end up together. Alas such is not the case mostly in  real life, we continue to make negative impressions of our colleagues, classmates, neighbours or whomever we happen to see in that pessimistic light.
What then is the answer to this sad happening - as usual there is no panacea, there is no simple way to discern whether the person we see as vain/conceited is so or not. All we can do it to have a more open mind, to take chances and to give chances to people around us. Open up to them a little to know more so as to make a better guess and in case we still are unsure, perhaps have a neutral opinion on such people.