Progressive Lol-ism

Contradictory to the general preconceived notion that you might or might not have assimilated having had a slight glimpse of the heading, the article isn't meant to tickle the proverbial funny bone, so you may proceed if you should without the slightest anticipation of entertainment.

Given the current state of affairs , I feel that if "lol" hadn't been invented ,it would have been inevitably harder to pretend being modest, much less , sane, on google chats. I mean ,when somebody tells you a joke , you have to laugh more because you're expected to and less because you want to. There is absolutely no other option than to be compelled to put in those three letters , and get exonerated of the slightest risk of being termed a " bore" or more dangerously , of being type cast as somebody who lacks the intelligence of getting a joke. Now again , it's immaterial whether one actually meant it , and again, to what extent it was pretentious and obligatory is an elusive mystery in itself. However, if at all, the idea is to deprecate your opponent , not appreciating the joke considered to be, precisely, "the" strategy, the archaic path. But then, if you really want to deprecate him and put him in further diminutive light, wouldn't you want him to live in that illusive world , where all that kicks his adrenaline is the fact that he has in his pocket a "potentially funny" joke. This way , he would be more than encouraged , to share his thoughts with the junta ,and the further audacious he gets in spreading the profligacy of his joke, the bigger fool he makes of himself.


I was just wondering , that if at all the root of this "lolistic" invention was to be traced, what it would be like. But, there's no absolute point tracing it and hence I wouldn't. Obviously , there is no dearth of good jokes, jokes that command that awe and appreciation on their very mention. In that case however , not only the word "lol" truly means itself but is generally coupled with a sumptuous addition of " hahahahas". And it is precisely then that one realizes that it wasn't that bad a mention.( :D ).Just a pinch of digression. I remember being taught a cognitive strategy in my earlier years , for I had always had this inherent confusion between left and right. Despite frequent mug ups, they were just too hard to decipher for me. In fact, I had this notional faith that the Right Path( from this right I mean ,correct) Path is always the Right Path( from this right I mean the direction) and this was ,I should say tersely, the cornerstone of my decision making in directions. Now , the fact that my name means " The Master of the right path " , shines out to be one of the bigger ,much less ,brighter ironies to have struck me. So the idea was to associate a picture to the words -right and left, and then overtime I was neatly sorted. Since then I've , more subconsciously, had this habit of associating pictures to commonly used words. Ever since 'lol' became a part of general vocabulary , both oral and written, I was more than compelled to attach an expression to it. So here it was, as and when people on chats typed "lol", I could automatically start visualizing them laughing their brains out sitting across their respective computer screens and I should add here , sometimes the very thought of some people laughing so blatantly used to make me smirk myself.

Now, the visualization of "hahas" is a little more complicated, for it can be perceived differently with different expressions attached to it. The idea is basically , how you say it? It could that sullen " ha--haha--hahaha " where the intention , more generally, is not to appreciate but to depreciate. An almost equally glum pattern is " ha ha ha ha". To be able to imagine a laugh with an avalanche of hahas is a little difficult , but I guess trying to imagine a guffaw would be more accurate. Again , trying to imagine some people guffawing at a joke , is not only entertaining but also enthralling, because some of these people are the ones who have literally hidden themselves in the canopy of subtlety , by the virtue of which the public display of unrestricted laughter is considered "inappropriate". Be it as they like it for themselves , it hardly bothers me. on the contrary , I feel indebted to these people , for if they hadn't been that , what should I say, out of the box , I couldn't have managed to gather my food : the food for thought.

Approximately In-approximate

In a world where some people intend to express their intention accurate to the third decimal, the word " Approximately" turns out to be a potential savior for the other variety. With increasing complexity and burgeoning dependency on the minusculest of exogenous details, Approximation has transformed itself from being a choice to a necessity for carrying out wordly processes . Now, what I intend to say may not be clear from what I have written so far , but whatever you may think it to be is only approximately correct. This is one fine example of using the word "Approximately" to shadow one's own unknowingness, the fact that I am myself incongnisant of what I mean to say here.

Putting it straight. As I was sitting today in one of my theory classes in college, very devotedly observing a lizard which had ventured into the arena ( the classroom I mean). And by the word "lizard" I do not intend to personify the teacher , it's a real lizard that I intend to bring into picture. I could intuitively sense that the lecture that was then in pursuit, was as effectively paralyzing the lizard physically as it was torturing me mentally. As sympathetically as we looked at each other ( the lizard and I) , I had this malignant hope raging inside me , the hope that the lizard would eventually lose its consciousness and drop dead on the criminal , the very lecturer who can and should be inculpated of paralyzing fifty nine other bright bulbs in class, apart from the already semi-functional one like mine. I was still wondering whether such a fiasco would deter him from continuing his lecture.

As much I would like to elaborate on the above, I'd stick to the issue. So, lost as I was in my unintentional telepathic interaction with the lizard, I had this random thought. What are the consequences of cascaded approximations, the very approximations that have been carried upon through generations. Almost suddenly,the alter ego inside me became all the more cacophonous and made me self answer a few questions. What was the inherent purpose of using an approximation? Clarity , I suppose, I said to myself. What else? backfired the devil. Perhaps ,they used it for the ease of it , I answered. Then came the question of preponderance. What if the process of approximation, which is carried out in one process cascaded to the other, eventually gave a result which contradicted its own inherent purpose ? It was this that made me realise how the deceptively trivial " approximation" may sway the results to an extent that they produce conclusions absolutely contradictory to the real result, camouflaging the real bone of contention by a wide margin.

Now, I know people will try to justify this with concepts of Maximum error and stuff , but that's not the issue here you see. Life and history are not aptitude questions that can be solved with a pen and paper, there are just way too many exogenous things that need to be pondered upon before making a final quote for the answer, which is many a times just impossible to do. An analogy here is a must and this one I suppose is the most relevant right now. Gossip, is possibly the most pervasive form of oratory approximations and I'm pretty sure each one of us has witnessed ( and I say this very sympathetically) the capability of an immature gossip ballooning into a false rumour and eventually souring terms between and amongst many.

ULIPS and TULIPS

What has caught my imagination this time is perhaps not the most contentious of issues today, but nevertheless , worth some mention here. The news about the newly found truce between the IRDA and SEBI is already making rounds. This very battle reminds me of the two year old ownership mess between the Ambani brothers. Earlier the structure of this financial hierarchy was somewhat elusive of my understanding , but having given it a random thought , I think I can get to the bottom of it.

SEBI, the sole regulator of all equity transactions in the market, is the more dominant of bodies as compared to the IRDA. Here comes the analogy. SEBI can be projected to be the legitimate son of NSE, the parent regulator. Having a decent , if not complete authority over transactions , SEBI has long been ostensible about its power and influence. IRDA on the other hand, metaphorises itself to be the ignored Illegitimate Son. Now, the argument arises over the word "illegitimate" . By my limited understanding I perceive an object to be illegitimate if its formation precedes the intention of it being used. IRDA was setup with a more obligatory set of powers, powers given to it for mere consolation . The board members of the IRDA had long realised this painful irony, and not only were they complacent to it but also somewhere satisfied with the perks they were granted for doing absolutely nothing .More directly, it turned out to be a dream job for some. For the more intellectual variety at IRDA , this was blasphemy. The ignominy they had to face in front of their counterparts in the SEBI would squeal them for inside , hitting their semipermeable wall of ego with little pebbles. As time passed , the rotundity of these erstwhile minute pebbles kept increasing gradually. What could not be averted was this ego being thwarted one day, making them clamor for their respect. It was coincidence then that a new financial product was about to hit the Indian circuit. The name ,ULIPS, very much synonymous to "tulips" , initially, did not go very well with investors. However given its torrid promotion, it somehow filled hand in glove with the then emerging needs, the need to hedge, that is to add to the portfolio an element of prudence, which was sufficed by that 2-5 % share of insurance. It can be blamed on the financial illiteracy of the then naive Indian investor, who invested his life earnings in this novelty , that the real picture remained rather hidden. As it appears now, people were fooled upfront , how ? that's a different story all together.

How does the IRDA come into picture? The IRDA needs some applaud for capitalizing on that minute 2-5% share of insurance to bring ULIPS within its purview of regulation. SEBI , inebriated by its power , failed to gauge the audacity of the situation, and of the fact that it had lost the opportunity to regulate a product which, by far, needed more regulation than others. And thereby followed the mess we have today. As the matter gets set to be settled in court , the common man is caught unaware of his financial unawareness and projects himself to be a member of a breed of Indians , who have very recently managed to accumulate a decent amount of wealth, the newly rich as they are called, participating in India's growth story but have failed to pocket that financial and intellectual insight that could help them retain this wealth in the future.