Technology is not the just the enabler but the medium of social change

Precession cycle of Earth is 1(one) year, not 25771.50 years.

Hello friends.
The below mentioned link provides an Audio-Visual demonstration of my discovery, which you should watch. I have through the demo explained how science has incorrectly considered 25771.50 years as the length of precession cycle of earth, vis-a-vis the true length - which is approximately 1 year.

https://youtu.be/dT1XPphsmbc

Do share this link to dessiminate this information amongst family and friends.

Social, economic & opportunity inequities, not dissent, are treason in India

Read an article by Maj. Gen. Mrinal Sharma titled “Why does India breed so many traitors?”, I received on Whatsapp (I have enclosed it at the end of my response in trail, if you desire read it). Worthy thoughts of a gallant soldier. Highlights his pain and predicament. I have penned my earnest views in a response to his article.
Major General, I pay my respects to you, an Indian Soldier, because you pledge to contract a deal of supreme sacrifice for us, the Nation. Men in uniform are a source of inspiration because we look at you as the last undefeated bastion of honesty & pride. Are all men in uniform honest? I doubt, there have been a fair share of scandals & corruption, yet my faith & admiration for the forces is uncontested by my heart & mind. Because Army for me are scores of disciplined & honest soldiers and not those few, who contaminate the pristine waters. Raison d’etre of saying aforementioned is to showcase that people & nations cannot be judged in averages.
Sir, it would have really helped had you defined, what is meant from the word ‘traitor’, which is the bedrock of your article. Treason is meant to be betrayal. Betrayal of what? of State, Government, people, or truth, or righteousness, or liberty or equity or constitution.
People might grossly differ in how they define treason. As an example, for me, evasion of taxes, throwing filth on roads, fleecing money from patients, selling justice, promoting inequity are more serious than shouting unpleasant slogans on the streets. Indeed, I bracket the former in Pakistan’s “bleed by thousand cuts” strategy. Patriotism does not need to manifest only as a habitual rise as soon as our ears smell the rhymes of Tagore’s work, floating in air. Who do we desire to pay our respects to, when we stand up in attention? You quoted National Pride and Identity. But both of these are intangibles of social imagination (I understand this might not exactly coincide with the nurturing a soldier gets, but notwithstanding, I stand by it). Often the intensity of emotion completely rids us from the logical query of finding the sink of our emotional exploits. Emotions seem to have become an end in themselves, rather than being a medium to reach their beneficiary. Who is the subject-noun of this respect we pay? I regard ‘Nation’ as a plausible answer. In absence of live discourse, I further assume that a Nation is primarily its people, along with the geography, culture, heritage, history etc. When one bows to the flag of India, he is bowing to its people. So, logically proceeding, through the Anthem, we pay respect to our fellow countrymen, both living and departed, through 52 seconds. What do most of us do for the rest of the 23 hours 59 minutes and 8 seconds? We divide these very people into castes, religions and creeds, use separate utensils for each other, sit at different levels from ground, fleece money from those who have little, pluck opportunity from those able but hapless, evade tax under the false pretext of their misappropriation by politicians. We are fundamentally not wanting to do or pay our share. This for me is 23hrs, 59min, 8sec of treason vis-à-vis 52 seconds of respect. By no means am I, metaphorical. It’s important to remember & equate such treason as “inflicting to ourselves a thousand cuts”. And I regard this as not just a treason vis-à-vis Governments (which are often of dubitable repute themselves), but a betrayal of those, who like Lajpat Rai or Bhagat Singh made supreme sacrifice not fighting like the army does – with arms of equal strength, but by accepting painful body blows. This is the gravest treason – that of the constitution of India and the idea of India! Getting up for the anthem is the easiest thing to do (not that I anyway condone any disrespect). Paying taxes and not throwing trash on the road is the tougher one. That for me this is a more serious betrayal. Therefore, by my rationale, we conclude that the number of traitors are much more than those few, who are verbose against the Government or its policies. All such traitors are amongst us. Indeed statistically, we are them!
Another important matter that I desire to bring to notice in connection with comparisons of Paris attack and Batla encounter, without casting aspersions on either its righteousness or falsehood is (a) the apparent disparity - one is an act of terrorism against innocent unaware people & other is an encounter; (b) the western world considers a State enduring vehement dissent as a mark of its maturity, not vice-versa. Democracy is the writ of majority, the dissenting voices ensure the balance of liberty & are like the grand pause in between loud musical notes that render an amazing reverberation touching the soul. As much as every student protest need not be eulogized, similarly every other does not deserve vilification. Having said that I am fully with you, that any act of negation of anything (incl. a nation’s existence) with no aim of protesting for the needy & downtrodden should be made to look heroic. No one including media should drop the bar so low. Indeed, such incidents needn’t even be given any importance. In a large nation that we are, we will always have all colours and hues.
About the media you have written better than I could ever have, hence nothing to add.
Enfin, your statement, "Every victory of the foreign invaders was facilitated by the local collaborators who betrayed their kings for some devious reward or to settle personal scores". Bulls eye! Yes, "settling scores". But is this the vice of likes of Mir Zafar only? I have two highlights. (i) A strong nation with dedicated & aware people, need not fear traitors, such people can at best dent, not wear away a nation of its shield. It is the people, who gnaw a nation from inside, create circumstances that enable betrayal of one overturn a kingdom or a Nation. Pakistan’s current situation is an excellent example, while India is saved only by a whisker. By no means am I condoning treason, but highlighting that the true culprit is not the one who nailed the coffin (the verbose traitor), but the one who lay the nation in it, silently inflicting a thousand cuts. (ii) My second highlight – is settling scores a vice of the few? To this question I have no lucid answer. I feel there is a cultural streak in us of settling scores. Indeed, it starts in our epics, tales and folklore and is rampant in our lives. So I leave you with this thought & query.
I too have often asked myself this question - Why are we dishonest and sometimes outright gutless? Part-truth, that I understood for myself is elucidated below, though surely there are other competing and complementing truths.
We are an old civilization, ‘almost’ in continuum. Willy-nilly we carry a baggage of wisdom and experience. While being proud of celebrating festivals for thousands of years, we forget that this came at a cost – that of loss of naivete and romanticism with world. We value individual survival more than collective sacrifice. Loyalty, sacrifice, pride are inventions of human society, which are of little effect to spontaneity of nature. Nature is discriminate; that which withstands a cyclone lives, rest perishes. Civilizational & cultural memes behave like spontaneous natural phenomena. We are, what we learnt and how we reacted to various circumstances through centuries preceding this day. Those learnings directed us on the path of extreme individualism. Most of us are great team players but in one-man teams. Other civilizations, which had a break in between, suffered less from their past as they could break from it and start afresh. We have been carrying all the knowledge & information of thousands of years along and are buried under its gravity. Nation-state in itself is an idea introduced recently to us. Probably we are still happening as a Nation.
In conclusion, your thought-provoking & discerning article merits my earnest appreciation for dealing with a sensitive subject of treason with eloquence. But then would my ideas of treason find favour with you; you will have to reconsider defining treason, while excluding earnest dissent from it. Your article of proposing that we are cursed by more than fair share of traitors in itself is a dissent against what we think of ourselves... Deepak Loomba



Article as received by me through a chain of whatsapp messages (I do not guarantee the authenticity of this article as it is not know to me, but since I liked the piece for the thought it presented and the eloquence with which the writer did it, I am reproducing it here):

Why does India breed so many traitors? By _Major General Mrinal Suman_

While studying Indian history in school days, one was repeatedly told that the foreign invaders resorted to ‘divide and rule’ policy to gain control over India. They were painted as unscrupulous schemers who exploited the simple, trusting and gullible Indians. It is only at a much later stage that one realised the hollowness of the above assertion. The truth is that we are adept at producing hordes of traitors who revel in India’s ruin.

Dear To begin with its important to define

Every victory of the foreign invaders was facilitated by the local collaborators who betrayed their kings for some devious reward or to settle personal scores. No fort was ever conquered without the infidelity of a trusted minister/commander. Unfortunately, centuries of slavery has taught us nothing. We carry on spawning throngs of people who can stoop down to any level (even imperil national security) for their petty gains.

2. Our leaders, media and intellectuals appear to have a single point agenda: how to generate innovative issues to keep the nation divided and embroiled in petty bickering and internal dissentions; and thereby impede progress and bring a bad name to the country. They abhor India’s rise. Let me elucidate. First, the leaders: they are the fountainhead of all fissiparous tendencies. For them, vote bank politics take precedence over everything else. One does not have to be a visionary to predict the danger of abetting illegal migration from Bangladesh for garnering votes. But unscrupulous political leaders carry on unconcerned. One hangs one’s head in shame when political leaders extend their support to a delinquent student leader who seeks destruction of India. Comparing him with martyr Bhagat Singh is by far the most perfidious act. Perhaps, India is the only country that has an ignominious track record of producing Home Ministers who revelled in shaming the country. One concocted theories of saffron terrorism to please his party bosses. In so doing, he presented a convenient propaganda tool to Pakistan. Another Home Minister did the unthinkable. He declared a terrorist to be innocent in an affidavit to the court. The aim was to ensnare the opposition leaders in a false case. Sadly, India’s intelligence gathering apparatus suffered immense damage in the process. When a leader declares ‘it's safer to be a cow than to be a Muslim in India today’, he puts the whole country to shame. The world media flashes such headlines with sinister pleasure. India’s image takes a terrible beating. Just to score a brownie point against the government, he presents a convenient propaganda handle to the hostile forces. How low can a leader stoop! Recently, a renowned advocate and a former law minister told a TV channel that shouting slogans for the destruction of the country is not debarred in the constitution. According to him, freedom of expression was of paramount importance. Even demand for secession (azadi) was justified. As the interview progressed, one was not only amazed by his perverted reasoning but also shocked to see the brazenness with which he was arguing. Survival of India appeared to be of no concern to him. One wondered if one was watching an Indian or a Pakistani channel. Secondly, the media personnel: the less said the better. From their conduct, it appears that many of them are foreign plants and India means little to them. When a leading media house invited a vicious and remorseless enemy like General Pervez Musharraf and groveled before him, it marked the lowest depths of shamelessness to which journalism could sink. Instead of castigating him for the Kargil war, he was treated as a peace loving guest. *** Both the electronic and the print media never report ‘positives’ about the country. Ugly India sells (a la ‘Slumdog Millionaire’); and not progressive India. Remember how a TV reporter failed to digest the popularity of Modi in the US and tried to incite the crowd with provocative remarks. But then they get paid to demean India, and not to extol it. Immense damage is also being inflicted on the unity of the country by the media through its Machiavellian and skewed reporting. Every news item is deliberately reported with a religious, caste or creed slant – ‘a dalit girl molested in a Delhi bus’ (as if other women are not molested in Delhi buses) or church guard killed’ (in reality an argument between two security guards had turned violent) or Muslim driver runs over a boy’ (as if his being a Muslim is of anyrelevance). Recently, in a case of cattle stealing, a leading newspaper could not resist the temptation to add that one of the five thieves is learnt to have had connections with a cow protection group in the past’. How cunningly, a simply case of robbery was given a communal taint. Petty vandals are given the coverage befitting a mass leader. It was obnoxious to see two TV channels airing their interviews with a student leader charged with sedition. The worst was the indulgent demeanour of the TV anchors; as if a national hero was being eulogised. The interviews were repeatedly telecast at prime time. Did these channels think of interviewing war heroes or martyrs’ families? Forget it; that would have been a pro-India act and that is an act of sacrilege for them. Thirdly, the self-proclaimed secular intelligentsia: it has done the maximum damage to India’s prestige and standing. Some of them appear to be fifth columnists masquerading as progressive intellectuals. In which country of the world would the intelligentsia write to the US government not to receive their Prime Minister? Honestly, it is simply loathsome: duly elected representative of 1.25 billion Indians being subjected to indignities by a shameless bunch of foreign-educated and foreign-paid anti-national elements. Unfortunately, their protests get huge publicity abroad, thereby undermining all efforts to raise India’s standing in the world forum. It can be said with certainty that the well-orchestrated campaign of intolerance was totally malicious in intent. The sole objective was to stall all progressive reforms by tarnishing the image of the government. How else can anti-nationalism be defined? As expected, having dented India’s reputation, sold-out media chose to ignore the true facts as they emerged subsequently. Hundreds of Christians, led by the church leaders, marched in protest on the roads of Delhi against the *alleged vandalism of churches and a theft in a Christian school. Routine cases of petty crimes were cited to suggest an anti-minority conspiracy.*** They ensured extensive coverage of their protests by the foreign and Indian media, thereby damaging India’s secular image. Foreign channels are only too eager to shame India. Unwisely, even Obama got carried away with his uncalled for advice, losing considerable goodwill in India. Reportedly, he said so on the prodding of an Indian leader. Soldiers and the national symbols: the national flag, the national anthem and the national salutations are representative of a country’s national identity and pride. They symbolise ancient heritage, current challenges and future aspirations. For soldiers, their sanctity is incontestable. Thousands of soldiers have sacrificed their lives to plant our tricolour on the enemy strongholds, thereby earning the ultimate honour of having their bodies draped in the national flag. Notes of the national anthem make every soldier get goose pimples. The response is instantaneous and the effect is electrifying. Even in their homes, they stand up with their families when the national anthem is played on TV during Independence/Republic Day ceremonies. Similarly, national salutations like ‘Hindustan Zindabad’, ‘Jai Hind’ and ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ ( now beinng alleged as having SAFFRON overtones) make adrenalin surge through their bodies. The salutations act as a rallying call to inspire the soldiers for the ultimate sacrifice. All military functions conclude with full-throated renditions of ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’. Therefore, the current controversy regarding national salutations is highly painful to the soldiers. They fail to understand as to how an Indian can have difficulty in hailing the country. How can ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ be assigned religious overtones. Finally: history stands testimony to the fact that a nation infested with the virus of treachery, deceitfulness and perfidy has always been an easy prey for foreign subjugation. No one knows this bitter truth better than India. Yet, our leaders, media and intelligentsia keep discrediting and harming the country through their seditious utterances and activities. Under the garb of freedom of speech, they support those felonious speakers who vow not to rest till India is destroyed. When Paris was hit by the terrorist attacks, the whole country gave a unified response. Compare it with our Batla House encounter against Indian Mujahdeen where two terrorists were killed and two arrested. A brave police officer lost his life. Yet, many seditious elements had the impudence to term the encounter to be ‘fake’. Therefore, the mystery remains unsolved. Why does India continue to produce so many Jaichand and Mir Jafars? Is India a cursed nation or is treachery a part of our DNA? One wonders.**

 

How to distinguish boiled eggs from those raw?

I was off lately asked this question by a scientist friend Andrey Kuzmin from Kiev.
I discovered 10 different ways to do this job:

1) Break the two eggs - apparent
2) Spin - boiled spins faster
3) Shake close to ear, the liquid is felt moving in raw egg.
4) strike softly with a spoon the raw one sounds different from boiled
5) press one side if a lying egg, the boiled one will pendulate better
6) put raw & boiled egg in one container with water & start stirring salt into it, boiled will float first
7) if both are rotated at very high angular velocity, the raw will succumb to centrifugal force first for lack of bonding between proteins
8) churn (rotate) each egg between hands, applying little (soft) pressure, the boiled egg will start cracking with small cracks vis-a-vis raw
9) light reflects differently from boiled vis a vis raw in a dark room
10) Roll the first egg with velocity 'V' towards other second one which is stationary, then strike the second one at velocity 'V' towards the first one. Velocity remains exactly same in both cases. The one that traverses lesser when momentum is transferred, is the raw egg.

Superficial thoughts on free will

Superficial Thoughts on Free Will

Friends, let's assume that free will is the capability to choose. Choice in return is limited by knowledge and knowledge is limited by the brain. Hence, one's own brain is the limit of free will ? This doesn't  seem like free will. 

Let's take another assumption to reach a different hypothesis - free will is the right to varied experiences. To understand this let's look at some additional aspects of free will - I think one can highlight at  least 4  levels/layers of brain activity. It is important to note that all the four layers of the brain work 'simultaneously'. 

The lower layer is that which ensures consciousness. This layer provides no choices - its critical job is to ensure survival.

The second layer is that which stores information and experience for guidance in future. 

The third layer is that of predisposition, it is guided by body chemistry which is further guided by genetic material to understand likings (the colour you like, the taste you hate etc.). 

Fourth layer is that which does not work for survival and provides the possibility of doing something with time at hand (this is still not free will).

Now remember that all four layers are simultaneously working. So the first three layers will guide one to ensure survival, provide experiential data and explain pre-dispositions, thereby taking away some part of scope of what can be done. The left off area/scope is the action area. 

Now in this left off scope there are two types of actions one can take - (a) re-experience that which is known to provide good feeling (from layers 2 & 3) or (b) experience something new. 

Could this choice be free will?

This choice too has patterns - the tendency of most humans is to reduce new experiences with age. As a child one wants to learn and experience more and more. But as one grows one gathers enough experience to survive in the world. So some decide just to survive, use the free time to re-experience what already is known to provide positive experience (hence be 'happy') while others (few) keep on risking time to have newer experiences (which may or may not be positive).

So what's good about the latter - they keep on expanding their knowledge with newer experiences. Now the earlier first deduction of choices comes into play - the more the knowledge the more are choices.

Therefore, I hypothesize  - Free will is the choice of a human being to either re-experience known phenomena or risk experiencing newer phenomena so as to increase the variety of choices and hence increase the scope of free will.

1979339339 - The largest prime number which when reduced by omitting the last digit, one by one, till last one digit, retains its primality

Supported by my nephew and my niece Simar (16 years) and Simran (13) we solved an interesting maths problem, which might be unique as investigated by us on internet. We found the largest Prime Numbers which when shortened by deleting the last digit retains its primality. Example 37337999 is a number which when deleted by last number retains its primality, that is- 37337999, 3733799, 373379, 37337, 3733, 373, 37, 3.

Probed on internet. Seems, both the problem and the solution are unique.

We solved the problem to make some interesting discoveries.

First - the largest such number is 1979339339. All numbers

1979339339, 197933933, 19793393, 1979339, 197933, 19793, 1979, 197, 19, 1

The other largest such numbers starting with 2, 3, 5 & 7 are: 

29399999, 37337999, 59393339, 7393933 (four)

The other very interesting observation is following - the number of possible cases (possible numbers ending with 1, 3, 7 & 9) turned out to be disproportionately large in case of those numbers that start with '1' vis a vis all other possible first digits - that is 2, 3, 5, & 7.

In all the five largest such numbers starting with 1, 2, 3, 5 & 7; 1, 2 & 5 appear only once, 7 appears 6 times, 3 appears 14 times and 9 is the most recurring 15 times.

The Anatomy of Grievance

The Anatomy of Grievance

INTRODUCTION

Grievance is one of the cornerstones of humanity. If a critical list was to be drawn of what distinguishes mankind from many other species; capability to complain will stand tall among stalwarts like Intellect, Pain, Emotional Quotient, Higher Consciousness, etc.

Grievance is one of the strongest inter & intra entity links, caused by both - real & imaginary reasons. The aggrieved or aggrieving entity can be a person, community, organization and even animals.

What distinguishes grievance from many other human feelings, is its retention capability in the memory of the aggrieved, besides the potential it embodies to cause voluntarily or involuntarily impact on the thoughts and actions of the aggrieved, any time, till a moment much later than the time of occurrence of such grievance (could be years). Grievance, hence is an important aspect of human relationship that needs to be addressed and handled. An aggrieved person is an axe waiting to fall anytime, making the aggrieved carry this burden (axe), while exposing the person perceived to have caused the grievance, under the risk of vengeance or retribution for a long time. In some extreme cases this further induces a set of negative psychological phenomena in the aggrieving entity. 

The impact of grievance can be established by its valence (positivity or negativity induced) and arousal (excited state of mind & body). Both valence and arousal depend on the grievousness of the offending act (real or as perceived by the aggrieved).  The time for which the grievance is retained is dependent only on the personality traits of the aggrieved Party, with no influence of the perceived or really offending party. Retention time therefore signifies a personality trait.

The aggrieved, might undergo cognizable (recognized by self or by ambience) or incognizable (unrecognized by self or by ambience) impacts. A grievance (perceived or real) causes not only an immediate reaction of the aggrieved but also leads to a long-term retention impact. In the mood space, which is created from valence (positivity), arousal and the retention time axis, it is apt to consider that grievance is a value in the valence-arousal plane changing in size every next moment. It will lie in the space which is denoted by the blue box below (arousal(+), valence (-) & retention(+)). 

PARTIES TO GRIEVANCE

A grievance can be held towards a person, ambience/circumstances, organization, State - anything that is a cognizable entity. A grievance can also occur against oneself, as also against God (a common proxy for grievance towards oneself, circumstances or ambience). The moment the aggrieved & the aggrieving co-exist in one person, it is emotionally, psychologically and clinically disastrous.

Consequently, a grievance is a resentment overt or covert that can happen against (i) an entity (including oneself, organizations, owners & operators of machines & animals, providers of goods and/or services); (ii) circumstances/time and last but not the least against God or other perceived supernatural objects/phenomena caused by real or imaginary reasons.

CAUSES OF GRIEVANCES

Grievances happen owing to 2 classes of causes – real & imaginary:

Real grievances happen owing to breach of (i) Commitment, (ii) Statute; (iii) Conduct; (iv) trust amongst other.

Imaginary grievances happen owing to breach of Expectations

MEASURE OF GRIEVANCE

 

Under-reported, Incognizable, Over-expressed and Disproportionately-reacted Grievances.

The arousal-valence plane of the grievance space is required to be analysed to arrive at a measure of grievance. Any grievance will lie on the left of zero on valence (since it’s a negative emotion), and above of zero on arousal, since it creates an arousal in the aggrieved. In ideal circumstances and in an ideal human arousal and valence values should be linear – it is axiomatic to assume that the more negative is the emotion, the more aroused will one be. But in reality this is not how it happens. Sometimes the reaction (arousal) of the aggrieved is much milder than what the negativity of the situation deserves and sometimes, substantially more than anticipated. The former, are the grievances whose coordinates lie below the valence=arousal line, while the latter are those which lie above the said line. Therefore, those lying below the valence=arousal line are under-reported (or sub-conscious/incognizable) impacts of grievance and those lying above the said line are over-expressed (or disproportionate reaction). In the figure below are two grievances – G1 & G2. G1 has an under-reported or incognizable component of the amplitude of which is represented by the distance of the G1 coordinates
(A1, V1) from below the valence=arousal line and denoted by X1. 

The ambiguity of G1 being an under-reported or incognizable grievance is removed by studying its progression on the third axis – that is retention time.

Under-reporting happens in case of highly controlled individuals, who can be assumed to have very high level of control on their expression & hence can also be assumed to be highly capable in dealing with the impact of the grievances & resultantly expected not to carry it for very long, realizing that it will harm them. Therefore, if G1 falls quickly towards (A1,V1) = (0,0) as retention time progresses, G1 will have high probability of being an under-reported grievance. In case it does not fall towards (0,0) it is probably under-cognized. In the figure above R1 is an under-reported while R2 is under-cognized grievance. It is important that the graphic representation of R lines in the 3D graph may not be adequately pictured.

Similarly, the over-expressed grievance will taper off to (A2,V2) = (0,0) pretty rapidly with passage of time, while the disproportionately reacted grievances will sustain for longer time, because disproportionate reaction is a self-propagating mechanism, which ensures that the amplitude of negativity does on reduce with retention time. Therefore, as shown in the figure above, R3 is an over-expressed grievance while R4 is a disproportionate reaction grievance.

Amplitude of under-reportedness or incognizability of a Grievance

Therefore, from the figure above it is possible to establish that G1 is an under-reported grievance would it progress in time in concurrence to R1 and an incognizable one wold it progress close to R2. The amplitude of under-reporting or incognizability represented as X1 can be inferred from the mathematics below and is equal to :

It is apparent that θ2 = (π/4-θ1) such that θ1=tan^-1(A1/V1)

ð θ2=(π/4- tan^-1(A1/V1))

GL1 = (A1² + V1²)^1/2

X1=GL1 x sinθ2  

ð X1=(A1² + V1²)^1/2 x sin(π/4- tan-1(A1/V1))

Over-Expressed and Disproportionately-reacted Grievances.

Similarly, it is possible to establish that G2 is an over-expressed grievance would it progress in time in concurrence to R3 and a disportionately reacted one would it progress close to R4. The amplitude of over-expression or disproportionate reaction is represented as X2 (distance from the arousal=valence line) and can be inferred from the mathematics to be equal to :

θ3 = (π/4-θ4) such that θ4=tan^-1(V2/A2)

ð Θ3=(π/4- tan^-1(V2/A2))

GL2 = (A2² + V2²)^1/2

X2=GL2 x sinθ3  

ð X2=(A2² + V2²)^1/2 x sin(π/4- tan-1(V2/A2))

Identification of valence and arousal values can be done using various methodologies, which will be presented in an innovative product.

DNSEA of Grievance

To measure grievance it is important to define & describe it, rationally.

Using my methodology (refer to my book 'Invention of Description') termed DNSEA, ‘grievance’ can be described as having below mentioned attributes:

Necessary attributes

Safety attributes

High Amplitude of Grievance with the aggressor and aggrieved being the same person is psychologically & clinically unsafe. Requiring professional help.

Fit-for-purpose attributes

Non-conformity to a commitment, or promise, made or perceived to be made to the aggrieved by the aggrieving party.

An action real or perceived, intended or unintended of the aggrieving party that leads to deterioration of the aggrieved party’s internal or external ambience leading to a negative valence. External here means that which is perceived using the five senses, while internal is that which is cognized without any inputs from senses.

Sufficiency conditions

Changes in size, dimensions

§  If the impact of grievance (arousal and valence) changes abruptly with time, the aggrieved party is probably under mood swings.

§  If the impact of grievance (arousal and valence) tapers fast with time the aggrieved party is a psychologically strong and healthy individual

§  If the impact of grievance (arousal and valence) survives long the aggrieved party is psychologically self-inflicting and a weak individual.

§  Rare but possible is an infinite plane in the mood space which is arousal=0. This means that there is no change arousal but negativity that lives for long. These are traits of dangerous people of the likes of Hitler.

Changes in properties

§  Ideally, the value of valence and arousal should lie on the linear line arousal=valence. Nonetheless, it does not happen this way in real life. If the value of valence vs arousal is substantially larger, the grievance is either under-reported or under-cognized (has a large subconscious component).

§  On the contrary, if the value of arousal vs valence is substantially larger, the grievance is either over-expressed or disproportionately reacted to.

Changes in Ambience

§  The change in the internal or external ambience to an external perceived or real offensive stimuli or non-fulfillment of commitments made to the aggrieved party, such that there is a negative valence, indicates a grievance.

Changes in Ownership

§  Humans have this amazing capability to vicariously feel emotions. The capability to transmit grievance through emotional or intellectual conviction of the aggrieved such that the otherwise, unconnected feels aggrieved too indicates a transmission of ownership of grievance & thereby its propagation in society.

Emotional Connect of Doer

§  The doer of a grievance is the aggrieving party. The aggrieved party may or may not undergo changes in the emotional connect. The doer may express a grievance that is based on a cause of action, or may imagine a cause of action for aggrieving someone.

Emotional Connect of Orderer

§  The orderer of a grievance is the aggrieved party. The aggrieved party may or may not undergo changes in the emotional connect.

Aesthetic Value

§  Aesthetic value in grievances is very critical as it reduces the otherwise glaring negative valence.

Definition of Grievance

In view of the DNSEA of Grievance presented above, one can conclude that Grievance can be defined as

“the persistence of overt or covert impact (ideal or under-reported or under-cognized, overexpressed or disproportionately reacted to) of negativity in the directly/vicariously aggrieved party, owing to (i) real causes like non-fulfillment of a commitment, trust, conduct or statute; (ii) or imaginary causes like expectations, or (iii) by execution of a real or imaginary act by an aggrieving party, which could be amongst other – other people, oneself, organizations, owners & operators of machines & animals, objects, providers of goods and/or services, ambience/circumstances, and last but not the least God or other supernatural objects/phenomena real or imaginary; such that all [(i), (ii) & (iii)] leading to deterioration of the external and/or internal environs of the aggrieved”.

[External environs are those that are perceived using the five known senses, while internal environs are those which are cognized by brain without any inputs from senses].

Measure of Value of Grievance

Interesting to note two terms in the definition above - ‘impact of negativity’, not just the negativity (hereby, making it mandatory to take both the valence as well as the arousal in account). The ‘impact of grievance’ at any instance is the product of valence & arousal, thereby denoting an area of the Arousal-Valence plane. The other important term in the definition is the use of word ‘persistence’. Thereby, mathematically, making it pertinent to have the arousal and valence values at multiple, regular instances (assuming they decrease with time), and then integrate them across time to procure the value of the grievance.

Grievance, therefore can be measured in Grievance-days, such that the value of a grievance leading to 1 unit of arousal, -1 unit of valence and retained for 1 day will equate to 1 grievance-day. If carefully observed, the calculation of grievance as product of valence, arousal and retention time is analogous to energy (force x distance x time, where force is arousal, valence is distance and time is retention time) because a grievance causes loss of internal positive & fruitful energy of the aggrieved party over time.

Why Anatomy of Grievance?

One might wonder, what makes grievances so important that I have written a whole paper on it!

All human-connecting causes like love, hate, respect, or even physical attraction requires knowledge of the counter-party, grievance is the only such interconnect of human beings with each other, animals, animated non-living objects (like mountains, flooding rivers, machines) and even imaginary entities (like God). This makes it the most unique interconnect & emotion of humans.

Second reason is the critical role that grievances, caused by real or imaginary reasons, play in the socio-economic development of a society. A grievance adequately addressed sometimes is an ally won.

Lastly, the inspiration to sit, think, analyse & write this article on grievance came on behest of C2SBook.com (under construction) through the process of creating a foundation for the portal. C2SBook is a global portal for receiving and supporting all (very literally ‘all’) ‘grievances’. C2Sbook is a central portal for all people of the world available in all major languages to express grievances and complains to then get them addressed through us irrespective of the entities against which the grievance is held – a person, an organization, a place, an event, an object (including products), a service, or government or God.

Enfin, I am reminded of a Russian Proverb which says, 

“I know complaining is a sin, yet I want to do it”. 

By 

Deepak Loomba