It's been a while since I wrote my last entry. One topic that has been on my mind of late is the diversity we today in our lives, everything we do and how the peoples of the world interact. You may wonder what triggered this thought. Of late, I've been engrossed in two activities -- one is actively fulfilling a long standing desire of mine and that is to learn Hindi. Another is my growing interest in India's spiritual past (more on this in a later post).
I started wondering about how the world has, over the past few centuries when man started communicating intelligibly, developed a large number of rich languages. The question arose, "would a new language develop in today's world?". My interest in Hindi was triggered when I attended a recent ghazal concert. While I didn't understand a word, the audience simply was spellbound with "wah-wah"s periodically echoing. While I understand ghazals are probably more Urdu, a learning of Hindusthani should help somewhat? As I delve deeper into this language I am amazed by its depth, its well structured grammar and its rich vocabulary. I see its roots in Sanskrit, which as I learn is even more amazing as a language.
One theory I have developed is, languages as rich as Hindi and Sanskrit have developed within societies that have had their share of isolation that has given them a chance to develop it. Complete isolation could lead to aboriginal societies that may still be at a hunter-gatherer stage. Appropriate mix of sharing and isolation leads to a different way of thinking and evolving on matters such as culture. Derive from the past, evolve independently seems to have been the trick here. India's rich cultural medley is fascinating -- every few hundred kilometres and you get a different language, cultural habits, deities and practices. At the same time, there is a common underpinning of harmony that is apparent. What has allowed them to develop this? I presume it is an appropriate mix of isolation - travel from one village to the neighboring village used to be a day long ride on a bullock cart?
Now, if we fast forward to today's society, with technological advancement, the concept of "news" and of course media and the Internet, there isn't that much isolation, even for remote villages. Common lingua franca (English for e.g.) flatten the world even further. The world clearly is becoming flatter by the day. While this clearly has benefits - arguably, advances reach societies faster, scale is achieved and intervention on difficulties is easier. However, my argument is, we could potentially lose diversity as a result -- why be different when there are so many influences to satisfy one's needs? Why develop a new language when it is simply convenient to use the one around you? Why think of a new way of doing things when there already is one that is accessible?
Now, fast forward to today's world of online communities and open source. Two paradigms that came up as a result of the Internet and are widely popular today. My argument is, open source, while taking advantage of online communities is able to come up with solutions that everyone wants (maybe because everyone participates in creating it), I would argue that this could flatten thinking. I am an open source developer and I see the plethora of solutions available today. I am able to use them to advantage to build new things -- stand on the shoulder of giants. However, I could also be heavily influenced by the way of thinking that is out there and lose the ability to think differently. Could this hurt the evolution of software in the long term?
Coming back to the consumer world, in a world filled with Coca Cola and Pepsi, there's not much initiative to go develop the next amazing drink (doesn't have to be a Cola, could be the next Tea or Coffee). Would there be another drink to rival the Tea and the Coffee in today's world? Fashion does evolve but given the rate at which fashion spreads will there be sufficiently different thinking? The Indian saree could not have developed in today's world and achieve popularity the way it has, could it?
How do we build a world where societies can have the isolation they need to develop independent ideas but at the same time share the ideas at the world's stage for everyone's benefit? Asia is probably most concerned about this and best set to answer this given the long history of diversity under reasonable isolation.
Thoughts?
I started wondering about how the world has, over the past few centuries when man started communicating intelligibly, developed a large number of rich languages. The question arose, "would a new language develop in today's world?". My interest in Hindi was triggered when I attended a recent ghazal concert. While I didn't understand a word, the audience simply was spellbound with "wah-wah"s periodically echoing. While I understand ghazals are probably more Urdu, a learning of Hindusthani should help somewhat? As I delve deeper into this language I am amazed by its depth, its well structured grammar and its rich vocabulary. I see its roots in Sanskrit, which as I learn is even more amazing as a language.
One theory I have developed is, languages as rich as Hindi and Sanskrit have developed within societies that have had their share of isolation that has given them a chance to develop it. Complete isolation could lead to aboriginal societies that may still be at a hunter-gatherer stage. Appropriate mix of sharing and isolation leads to a different way of thinking and evolving on matters such as culture. Derive from the past, evolve independently seems to have been the trick here. India's rich cultural medley is fascinating -- every few hundred kilometres and you get a different language, cultural habits, deities and practices. At the same time, there is a common underpinning of harmony that is apparent. What has allowed them to develop this? I presume it is an appropriate mix of isolation - travel from one village to the neighboring village used to be a day long ride on a bullock cart?
Now, if we fast forward to today's society, with technological advancement, the concept of "news" and of course media and the Internet, there isn't that much isolation, even for remote villages. Common lingua franca (English for e.g.) flatten the world even further. The world clearly is becoming flatter by the day. While this clearly has benefits - arguably, advances reach societies faster, scale is achieved and intervention on difficulties is easier. However, my argument is, we could potentially lose diversity as a result -- why be different when there are so many influences to satisfy one's needs? Why develop a new language when it is simply convenient to use the one around you? Why think of a new way of doing things when there already is one that is accessible?
Now, fast forward to today's world of online communities and open source. Two paradigms that came up as a result of the Internet and are widely popular today. My argument is, open source, while taking advantage of online communities is able to come up with solutions that everyone wants (maybe because everyone participates in creating it), I would argue that this could flatten thinking. I am an open source developer and I see the plethora of solutions available today. I am able to use them to advantage to build new things -- stand on the shoulder of giants. However, I could also be heavily influenced by the way of thinking that is out there and lose the ability to think differently. Could this hurt the evolution of software in the long term?
Coming back to the consumer world, in a world filled with Coca Cola and Pepsi, there's not much initiative to go develop the next amazing drink (doesn't have to be a Cola, could be the next Tea or Coffee). Would there be another drink to rival the Tea and the Coffee in today's world? Fashion does evolve but given the rate at which fashion spreads will there be sufficiently different thinking? The Indian saree could not have developed in today's world and achieve popularity the way it has, could it?
How do we build a world where societies can have the isolation they need to develop independent ideas but at the same time share the ideas at the world's stage for everyone's benefit? Asia is probably most concerned about this and best set to answer this given the long history of diversity under reasonable isolation.
Thoughts?
powered by performancing firefox
