Vitamin D

So lately I have been employing my rather precious time pondering over life's imponderables. In this relentless quest for the ultimate truths, I have been helped, in no small measures, by the numerous intellectually stimulating discussion that I have had with a number of my friends in the recent past. Having attained enlightenment, (Oh!, did I forget to mention ? I attained it last Friday) I now feel that I have equipped myself with the weapons necessary to take the puzzle of life head on.

So I was ruminating over life last night when I happened to stumble upon a dark realization. This reality check was initiated by the critical insights of a friend of mine and since then, I have duly torn the issue to tatters through acute reasoning and precise logic. The fact of the matter is this:

Sunlight does not contain Vitamin D.

Surprise surprise ! I am sure, like me, you would be evaluating your beliefs right about now. I am sure, like me, this truth has shaken your worlds to the very core and left you all speechless. Everything that you have been taught till now, everything that you believed in till now, each one of them now has a gray hue of uncertainty, isn't it ? I mean, if the almighty Sun deceives with such vulgarity, imagine the fickleness of human relations. Imagine how fragile the illusion of life itself when the fundamental axioms of nature have come under the scrutiny of suspicion.

Anyways, don't worry. Its not as if you do not get Vitamin D from sunlight at all. You see, I always used to think that somehow Sunlight is filled with Vitamin D and it keeps showering us mortals with ample amounts of it during the day. I never saw a reason to believe otherwise. Vitamin D in sunlight is one of those esoteric topics, you never really give much thought to. You just take for granted that Sunlight gives Vitamin D without really bothering your already bothered self with higher questions like "How" and "Why". Its not one of those problems which could cost you your dinner if you failed to fathom it properly. So like the herd-followers that we are, we seldom question the veracity of our beliefs. We keep living our lives, earning our breads, cursing our fates, brooding over our problems, and all this while we somehow never seem bothered by the fact that Sunlight might after all not contain Vitamin D. As it turns out, although Sunlight does not contain Vitamin D, it synthesizes it by reacting with our skins. I would like to say "Potato Potaato, Tomato Tomaato" but that would just be freaking ignorant.

So this notion set my thinking machinery in motion and I was forced to consider some highly relevant questions. What about animals ? How do they get Vitamin D with all the fur they have ? Do they not need it as much as we humans do ? The only way a dog can get Vitamin D is through its nose and I am not even sure that its nose is competent enough for the job. In either case, the size of the nose doesn't make too strong a case for effective manufacturing of Vitamin D. What about small kids who have a much smaller surface area to show to the Sun ? Do obese people get more Vitamin D ? Are the skinny models relatively Vitamin D malnutritioned ? Should Vitamin D be considered legal grounds for public nudity ?

As you can see, enlightenment has its flipside. Once the trivial issues of life are sorted out, what remains is truly mindboggling, the above musings form just a part of which.


On Morality

I have recently been accused, and in no mild terms, of being too frivolous for most of the time when I seem to have a hidden talent for decent rationality. I have recently been sort of reprimanded for indulging my interests far too much in stupid incoherence when I could as well have given thought to something a bit more important. Although I still feel that this conception is entirely unfounded and that I never intended anyone to believe that I have even a shred of rationality, I have decided to give coherence a shot, a decision that is not in the least based on a few recent events.

So the question posed to me was, "Is morality a subjective notion ?" Before venturing into this I would just like to mention here that I have immense respect for the ideas of the person who asked me this question and if my musings appear contradictory to his, I might as well be at fault. Anyways on to the subject.

The question needs population to be separated into two distinct wholes. The ones who do have principles and try to live by them and the others who make them up as they go, living each moment for its own worth, trying to keep their eyes shut towards the weightier issues. No one group can claim to have a superiority over the other since in the end its the six yards of ground that consumes them all and no amount of thought and principle can change the fact. This distinction is necessary on the other hand because morality being a principle of life matters to one group a whole lot more than the other. And it is this group I specifically want to talk about. I believe that everyone has a sense of whats right and wrong but their thresholds differ so that given a situation, a few would find themselves in much more discomfort than the others. This argument would make it sound as if morality is a subjective notion which to some extent it is but only if you do not consider the impact of society in its implementation.

Sadly so, but man has become so dependent on social support, he has had to build up the framework of society to keep everything in place. In his quest to hide his own insecurities, he has made rules which define acceptable human behaviours. Religion is an example where the system has made rules which guide a person in difficult situations. It acts like a lighthouse for those who do not possess the rationality to differentiate right from wrong in subtle situations. All men, not being created equal, need an authority of some kind to tell them what is acceptable behaviour. And it is here that the objective nature of morality springs supreme. Its just another word for social conformance and that is not a personal idea. To a certain extent, everyone is bound to it or atleast supposed to be bound to it and those who do not adhere to it are seen as asocials in the least.

But the story doesn't seem to get over here. Let's take the case of religion. What about those few who can take their own decisions. It is allowed for them to be atheists. Shouldn't individuals be allowed to have their own set of moral principles ? I feel that morality is a mixture of subjectivity and objectivity for most people. While society puts bounds on the objective nature for the whole of humanity, each individual gives it his own flavour by deciding his own thresholds. For example, morality says you should not steal but lets face it, to some degree we are all thiefs. The only thing that separates us is the threshold we have on our own morals which dictates what we find harmless theft and where we draw the line.

Finally I come to the most important part of this discussion, a line of thought that has been inspired by the person who asked me this question. What about those few who have a radically different notion of morality vis-a-vis the rest of humanity ? Is it allowed ? More importantly, is it acceptable ? Intelligence and rationality, in this world, can act as double edged swords. While one of their edges serves to sharpen one's view of reality and provides oneself with the independence and creativity of thought, at the same time it's other edge cuts through the strands holding that individual to the fabric of society. I think its allowed (except in the most extreme of circumstances) but since by nature man is a social animal, his independence is just another name for sorrows to all those who are attached to him. I cannot say how much I hate this notion and how difficult it is to accept it, especially now, but that I think is the truth. One's notion of morality cannot be radically different from the unimaginative view that everyone else holds and if it is, it just means a kind of social ostracization. But then here is the deal. No one achieved anything by being conformal. There is a reason why every single original thinker's personal life was a mess. Conformity can give you a secure and assured life but as someone said to me the other day, 'might as well die'. Its fine till you define a set of rules and try to abide by them. If you have chosen to define your principles as different from those of the masses, do not try to weigh your actions in the currency of the latter. Its futile and it can only bring pain. What needs to be realized is that your actions are bound to create friction between you and the others since you have chosen to live and think differently. Its better to be prepared for your share of sighs and tears. For these people there should not be any half measures since it would only screw up things completely. Either they should not cross the starting line, or they should go the whole nine yards.

I believe I have spoken beyond my means and I am sorry if any of it comes as being too stupid or too pompous. I am not used to rationalizing and might as well have gone wrong. I think it is much easier for me to argue when I know I am obviously wrong. Then, I atleast do not fear criticizm since I know the futility of criticizing a view criticizing hot chocolates around San Diego. Its tormenting though, when your innermost ideas are up for merciless analysis of outside world.

About Me

My photo
Like a particularly notorious child's tantrums, a mountaneous river's intemperance, a volcano's reckless carelessness and the dreamy eyes of a caged bird, imagination tries to fly unfettered. Hesitant as she takes those first steps, she sculpts those ambitious yet half baked earthen pots.