censored wikileaks

3:46 PM
BUH: KBO, busy?
3:47 PM
KBO: nope
3:48 PM
BUH: any news from UU?
i know you are going to ask me about phd etc.
but gharma problem vadhi gayo chhe.
DD does not understand my position and state i am in.
3:49 PM
it's not that i am not working for phd. but she's grown impatient now and as it is she's never the wife you can expect to be by your side in all troubles.
she's too simple for this.
3:50 PM
i mean, the kind of virtues we see in great novels and epics are hard to come to her naturally.
she's trying to. but the psyche does not change that easily.
3:51 PM
she's been raised in a richer family than me and does not quite understand. i told you in EFM only that she's going to be disappointed.
3:52 PM
some people do not have power to comprehend and because of this they feel insecure.
how much ever hard i try to explain to her and family that i can find a job whenever i want and can earn money, these people have grown impatient.
3:53 PM
after all, how much moeny does one need? i earn more than my needs. and i am happy .. because i never compare.
3:54 PM
i never do because inherently, two individuals are unique and the comparison is never fair. Comparisons require "metric" and metric needs "measure"
both measure and metric are unclear to compare two human beings. even in a prescribed subjective context.
3:55 PM
KBO: I have very similar problem
described the problem sometime back here -
but frankly could not brain storm about the solution
3:56 PM
I have not named her in that writing - but I was upset under very similar circumstances
BUH: people can change. surely can. but not their deep-rooted convictions.
3:57 PM
i cannot change hers and i cannot change mine.
these deep-rooted convictions drive my entire psyche.
i can change my habits, my home, family, food, job etc. but i cannot change that one tiny set of fundamental "axioms" i have.
3:58 PM
i dont know where these axioms come from. Even math does not answer about axioms.
by definition axioms are accepted as is.
3:59 PM
KBO: yeah, read in some novel ... if I change that fundamental thing, I will not remain 'I'
4:00 PM
BUH: but like a good companion, we try to satisfy their needs by providing them with whatever they ask for.
changing the job for me is not going to change the attitude i have towards life or life's purpose.
4:01 PM
KBO: similarly they are also trying their best to live with our 'eccentricity'
BUH: oh i agree with that. sure.
4:02 PM
but if this is understood well, shouldn't one befriend with other's beliefs, convictions, and ideals?
than the outer personality?
if that happens, there will be no quarrels at all about anything
4:03 PM
because then there will be a syllogism from action to belief and there is no inconsistency. it would be already predicted by her.
it would be already expected and accepted by her.
4:04 PM
if you carefully examine, all major quarrels in the household are of the nature: "how can you do this?"
sure, this question is never directly asked. but it is reason for all subsequent words spoken.
isn't it?
KBO: trying to think
4:05 PM
BUH: now, if this "how can you do this" can be answered by her own self, there would not be any need for an outburst.
no feelings or emotions "hurt"
4:06 PM
since there is no inconsistency. and there is no clash and there is no hurt.
KBO: yeah, but then this is even more serious issue
because you are saying that there are fundamentals involved
different fundamentals I mean
and clashing
4:07 PM
BUH: yes, but the knowledge of fundamentals or axioms remove all uncertainty and claims to irrational behavior
so, i am trying to say that if she knows what i believe in and if know what she values, the behavior is quite predictable.
4:08 PM
KBO: and we are trying to solve this issue with superfluous things like changing jobs
BUH: yes.
precisely.
4:09 PM
and so this is going to remain even after satisfying endless needs as long as that basic nature is yet to be understood.
if that is understood, my behavior will not longer appear irrational and hence unjust.
KBO: I think they already know the basic nature already ... but there is a conflict between our basic nature and theirs
4:10 PM
If I take a smaller example, I do not believe OW is bad ... whereas it is tabu for her
Taboo*
4:11 PM
how do you neutralize this conflict
BUH: only by coming to a compromise where the natures do not engender any outcomes which are physically offensive to the other party.
4:12 PM
some compromise where i can be what i am and still do not cause any damage or trouble to her "space"
4:13 PM
if the word "space" and "trouble" are defined properly, a couple must be able to come to some reasonable solution.
and here's where the major difficulty.
4:14 PM
KBO: we came to a work around solution this way - I do not go for OW when I am with her. And she avoids questioning what I had for lunch in office
BUH: wonderful!
KBO: so theoratically, your solution is right
BUH: just the corroboration.
4:15 PM
KBO: is there any way we extrapolate this idea to current problem?
4:16 PM
BUH: but just think if she includes her riligious chastity in her "space" where she refuses to drink your half-left water and continously contemplates about this, then there is a problem.
4:17 PM
i am trying to say that the word "space" must be defined as "minimum possible physical and emotional region:
and both must work hard to minimize this region .
if there is still an intersection of these spaces, then one can sit down to solve the problem.
but in most cases, there is none.
4:18 PM
So, here's the extrapolation or solution:
KBO: hmm
4:19 PM
BUH: draw up the minimum regions by identifying the corporeal as well as emotional needs
and noticing that these cannot be trespassed.
4:20 PM
but this is not easy.
since minimizing the regions is difficult ...
KBO: still not sure how we solve the current problem
BUH: that would need the consensus on "what is reasonable"
4:21 PM
KBO: So for the current problem - I think minimizing region means remain satisfied with the resources that are really necessary and not a luxury
BUH: only half true.
KBO: ?
4:22 PM
BUH: Example of the region a wife would draw is:
1. husband to earn x amount of money minimum to pull on the household.
2. to save enough for contingency
4:23 PM
3. to value her freedom and let her pursue her career in such a way that the house doesnt suffer
4. never to uestion about her friends and the past
By the way, this is not my case. i am just illustrating
KBO: yeah - hypothetical example
BUH: some aspects of the above are emotional and some are physical.
4:24 PM
5. Visit my parents at least once a month
6. leave me when i say leave me
dont keep pushing
4:25 PM
7. let me choose my career as long as it does not harm "your region"
9. never question my belief in God
KBO: I was trying to think about the definition of 'space' relevant for our current problem ... you are trying to describe a super set
BUH: there is only one space that i am talking about. Rather, a set.
KBO: the list might a bit too long
4:26 PM
BUH: the set contains items that are too important for one's own peace and cannot be foregone.
KBO: yup
BUH: there are two sets for two individuals.
each set contains physical and emotional needs.
4:27 PM
both must come to agreement on what is reasonable to include and after that is accepted, one can never find difficulty
for example, today morning
we had a heated argument
4:28 PM
i told her that it is not her business to see what i am doing: as long as i am legally making money enough for the family, and have a traceably sound future, she must not poke her nose.
that this upsets her.
now, i consider this as my own "set of needs".
where is any conflict?
KBO: hold on -
4:29 PM
In any case, she married an Asst. professor
4:30 PM
isn't it? Then why this push
how about this argument?
BUH: she says she thought i would make more progress and money
she projected.
4:31 PM
or, may be the expectaions rose after marriage
KBO: hmm .. in my case - I am sure that the expectations rose after the marriage ...
4:32 PM
BUH: most likely true in any case.
KBO: if we can get it to pre-marriage level then also we may get a reasonable solution to this issue
4:33 PM
BUH: And if you see, the root of many difficulties is coming too close to someone. There still needs to space .. i dont want her to hear my fart when i go peeing .. :-)
i just illustrating about the space.
KBO: :D
4:34 PM
this 'space' solution is a bit abstract. And secondly, difficult to implement. Thirdly idealistic. I was thinking about some second approach for a quick fix.
4:35 PM
BUH: quick fix is easy: be oblivious to these deep issues and keep pleasing each other.
4:36 PM
KBO: nope ... that's how discussion around 'getting expectations back to pre-marriage state' turned up.
BUH: One thing that is true law is
digging the past never helps
never ever.
KBO: oblivion fix we already tried ... probably for too long
4:37 PM
BUH: "i thought ... " .. "you told .." "i felt .. "
KBO: I agree
BUH: majority of these are far from the truth .. they are the projections of the present on the past.
and it is the present that is speaking through them
KBO: is it possible we convey the meaning without using "i thought ... " .. "you told .." "i felt .. "
4:38 PM
BUH: no, because all these were talking about their "expectations" which are predictive in nature.
they are talking about their "expectations" from marriage and married life.
4:39 PM
and when you ask why didn't you make clear to me about this? , the statements "i thought .." "i felt " will ensue.
no escape.
KBO: hmm
BUH: point is: digging the past is never helpful.
it is the present that needs work
4:40 PM
KBO: okay - let's get back to the first approach then
BUH: that is to sit down and talk about regions
is it?
KBO: yes
there is a bit of issue in implementation of this approach
4:41 PM
BUH: a lot of problems.
it is only good in theory.
4:42 PM
because once again, what is reasonable is debatable.
KBO: Firstly, they do not understand this approach
and talking to them about this abstract and idealistic stuff is useless
BUH: i consider it reasonable that i be in a place where i get job satisfaction.
true.
4:43 PM
and if this commes in the way of her needs to stay close to her parents (hypothetically), then there is a clash right there.
KBO: exactly ... there is no rational involved if it is in the way of their needs
BUH: solving this issue requires comparing two different needs:
4:44 PM
KBO: heck - there is no solution
BUH: one, to get job satisfaction for me and other to stay close to her paretns. both are equally dear.
how to solve it?
KBO: simple way to handle this is become the boss of your house ... dictator
4:45 PM
BUH: ironically, that is the solution our ancestors adopted .. and were quite happy actually
KBO: of course - that too is very difficult now because we have already set wrong expectations
BUH: no company can run under two chief executives.
but let us remain democratic.
:-)
4:46 PM
KBO: WTF - we are heading towards such a wrong solution approach
BUH: so, the solution is: just provide for what they ask and be happy.
ergo, coming back to my question,
4:47 PM
what happens to UU's?
KBO: we are already trying that - but that is also not working, right?
I mean their expectations are increasing at a greater pace than our "flexibility"
BUH: yes, it is not working
yes, the rate of change is huge
4:48 PM
KBO: UU's mother is in ICU - he could not work on your resume
BUH: well, there is other way:
to prevaricate, equivocate, lie
simply start lying and quick-fixing things
4:49 PM
many have chosen this .. although i am not sure what will be when one is caught.
KBO: we may have to break this discussion for now ... but I am happy we discussed this. I would have been super-happy to conclude at some workable solution.
BUH: sorry to hear about UU's mother.
pleaes do not stress him
4:50 PM
read game theory
KBO: that lying part will only worsen the situation out of control.
BUH: really, that has some insightful solutiosn to such problems
KBO: At least things are still under control - however worse they are.
4:51 PM
BUH: true. but seriously, read game theory.
you will find it fascinating
chalo then ..
bye for now .. thanks for talking
you are as sharp a friend as i need and want
4:52 PM
wish we could stay closer and take walks.
:-)
KBO: if you are referring to some online link for game theory then send across ... if you are referring to some book/article then give name
4:53 PM
BUH: i will send you ebooks that find very nice
KBO: ok. talk to you later.
BUH: bye
KBO: hey - before we jump out of this window -
4:54 PM
1. send boarding pass, etc.
2. send e-books
3. consider (seriously) visiting Insti
4:55 PM
shit - I enumerated it in the reverse order of priority
chalo bye
BUH: sure, bye