this is the cutest autobiography i have ever read.
if not and AB, i’m sorry of course.

I think samudaya urgently needs to do something to improve its environment.

The piece above is a good example of how badly people learn to write. If s/he is a creative writing student, s/he should better think about pursuing something else.

The writing is full of cliches (e.g. prepared by cooks in Kathmandu); wrong choice of words (e.g. to the ‘disadvantage’ of onlookers and waiters); gramatical errors (e.g. Presently she drank tea with a friend in New York), etc. In brief, it is NOT worth reading.

My final comment: creating the so-called ‘modern environment’ does not make an essay or fiction interesting. Improve your language, and think about someting more interesting.

this piece is no literary masterpiece. it may or may not be worth reading. but how is “prepared by cooks in kathmandu” a cliche? and there are no scales to determine whether “disadvantage” is the wrong word in a prose like this (poetic license). i thought it was used for a humorous effect. also there is no grammatical mistake in “presently she drank tea with…”

Damn right! Samudaya urgently needs to do something about the environment — make things lot less heavier by including prose/articles that explore different dimensions of being a Nepali, heck a Nepali wanna be American or a confused Nepali-American, or strictly a non-Nepali enamored by Nepal — Ian comes to mind. Or or or, just a damn human entity trying to figure shit out. Whatever the case, it would be a worthwile experiment to give the political charade a break. Pugyo baba pugyo. Democracy, secularism….whatever man!

In that sentiment, the above prose is a break-away from the politically oppressed and rhetorically laden contemporary Nepali psyche which, in spite of its rather simple anecdotal claim on the definition of ‘success’, I almost find some redeeming wisdom (paradoxical nonetheless) in ‘Be best, not in……’

wow! people in glass houses - there’s a cliche for you dikka.

samudaya exists for the common heritage of us nepalis - that one’s for you too.

please, do feel free to point out syntax errors, but realize that those of us posting comments aren’t writing code; tasks will execute despite poor sentence structure and spelling.

about the writing - my personal opinion is that the writer has an affinity for super thick speech. i don’t think the writing is poor by any means. the story is good, once again, but the writing could be simpler.

lau lau, bhaire haru. kina kanla muni ufrira? writing bhanya writing ho ni. writing bhanya manche haru jastai ho. koi thepche, koi nepche, koi lambu, koi dalli, ko goro, koi kalo, koi lede, koi pede, koi jhallu, koi lafda, koi dhani, koi garib, koi sexy, koi alchi.
bhanna khojya ke bhane, writing jasto kura ma ni mathematics ko formula check garya jasto garera huncha ra bhanya. sab ko afno afno style ni. aba publish bhakai author haru pani testai. war and peace dherai lamo bho bhanera ke garne, tolstoy le lekhihalyo. stephen king chai aba devkota jasto marmik bhayena bhanera ni bhayena… the two are coming from two different angles. tesai gari, yo pani. aba pheri sarahana le yo padhna paisa charge garya bhaye auta kura. yo sabai forum haru ko theme nai jalda balda thula thula aakha bhaka hami jasta jawan ayera eso kehi kura exchange garne kehi sikne hoina ra?
ke ko dikka lagyo ni? dikka lagyo bhane ghar jau babu. criticism dine bhanya euta kura ho tara self-righteous attitude ta na ghar ko na ghat ko. ho ki nai, lau bhana ta?

Let me comment on the above story from a different angle.

Many of us tend to think that we are smart alecks because we know how the world can be made a better place to live in. Therefore, we construct and live on ideologies. Those vague and useless ideologies which mean many things in general but nothing in particular.

I study anthropology. The most important thing I have learnt by studying this subject is that no single individual in this whole universe lives for others. We live for ourselves, and we always try to be the best in the world. Even a seemingly altruistic Hindu monk tries to be the best monk in the world. Social life is like a game of card in which you always try to maximize your chance of winning over others.

Therefore, ideologies, in spite of the pleasure they give, are useless. Human being tries to be ‘super human’, if you don’t believe me, read Nietzsche.

Those who think that they can ‘improve’ the lives of others (through their ideologies) are dangerous people. Beware of them! The idea of giving emancipation to others is a dangerous and outdated practice which many people love so much to perform.

Human beings try to be best in the world. Good luck to you sarahana.

dikka lagyo, congratulations on figuring out the meaning of life. since you are ‘studying’ something, I assume you are fairly young. That’s a good chunk of your life left to be lived through this newfound wisdom of yours. So what’s next for the great anthropologist dikka (who likes to critique ideology using another ideology)?

Sarcasms aside, one thing I have learnt (without even being a student of anhtropology - can you believe that?) is that the most foolish of men use all-encompassing, generalised, absoloute statements like “no human…” or, “those who…improve…. are dangerous” (wtf??).

And man, welcome to the Nietzsche club. He’s one of those philosophers whose ideas and name you can drop in any cocktail party and get credibility without even the need to elaborate. Just tell them to go read the fucking book. I mean if hitler could get away with it, why shouldn;t you? Besides no one understands the madman’s ramblings anyway, so might as well use it to justify the inherent selfishness of humanity.

an apt nepali proverb comes to mind: “afo bhalo ta jagatai bhalo.”

Ki Kaso?

My overzealous and forceful attempt to define/defend posts aside, I feel like I really need to intervene here, I seriously do, especially when dikka lagyo, a popular slang for general withdrawl from things ordinary, enlightens us with ‘theories’ so basic and simple that I find them so heavy and wakka lagyo instead.

Sir/Madam, if it is that you have realized that no (wo)man lives for other (wo)man in this world by studying anthropology and not by experience, I suggest that you start peeking out from the protective walls of academia and engage yourself in the ‘real world’. You will certainly learn many ‘basic truths’ of life in this school — the school of hard knocks. All you have to do is ‘get outside of youself’ by allowing thyself to be the victim, get burned once in a while. But the problem I see is that we look to learn such only in books and institutions without having to make ourselves vulnerable to ‘things out there’, in a cheesy way, we want to understand life without really having to undergo the experience of living. What contradiction!

Now, ideologies are there to guide those who are ‘lost’, and those who are so enamored with things so general and futile that they have really sucked themselves into the pit of self-gratifying cocoon, and by all means I sheepishly include myself as one of many. It is for those, people like myself that theories provide a general guideline, a framework, if you will, to follow and give some shape to my/our otherwise fragmented and overcharged (really?, overcharged?) life experiences. Without theories, any theories, doesn’t have to be this or that, it becomes extremely difficult or almost impossible to even continue this exchange. Thus I stop.

Hahaha

I liked your comment. After all, the world is an interpretation, and no interpretation is final.

However, your interpretation that people who ‘study’ something are young is funny. Bad guess old man!

Mystichacker

Do you come to samudaya to intervene when people start intense debate? That means you are the ‘governer’ of samudaya. With due respect to your right to post your comment, I find your style bossy and disgusting. People do not expect your fucking intervention when they are arguing.

‘Dikka lagyo’ is not a slang. You should rather check the meaning of ‘dialect’ in a good dictionary.

Finally, theories are the most disastrous things which human beings have invented and used to suppress the powerless. I would suggest you to read Jean Francoise Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, etc.

Hey hey, it is an open forum, thus intervention galore! Pardon me but I hardly consider the debate you were having an ‘intense’ one. Thus I kindly leave you with your prerogative to be extremely contradictory, afterall, none of us are really perfect, or god forbid that we even TRY to be. I will let you divulge youself, but not without the following.

Now, I fail to see WHAT theories you are specifically referring to by posting them postmodernists as example which, if you consider modernism as a theory, albeit a passee, you very much need to accept postmodernism as one too. Deconstructionism of Derrida, Lyotard et all are all theories that YOU now seem to subscribe to, all the while propounding on the futility of subscribing to ANY theory. Somewhere earlier you also asked us to read the ‘existentialist god’ — Nietzsche. The gist seems to be that you are overwhelmingly enamored by postmodernism, a THEORY nonetheless. I rest my case.

Dikka Lagyo

I will honestly try not to disrupt the flow of ‘intense’ debate you guys are having.

“Finally, theories are the most disastrous things which human beings have invented and used to suppress the powerless. I would suggest you to read Jean Francoise Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, etc. ”

Well, I can’t think of any apt analogy to put forth to shed some lights on ongoing ‘intense’ debate, but I would do it anyway though it is a crappy one to advocate why theories/ideologies are absolutely necessary, disastrous or constructive they are inevitable for society to evolve for better or worse.

So, here I begin my crap theory…..
In the first grade you learn the different alphabets, by third you would learn to put them together to construct words, by fifth grade you put them together to spell ‘fuck’, when in high school ‘fuck’, the noun becomes verb and you would be practicing it. By the time you get to college you would be taking ‘anthropology’ class to debate the moral/social aspect of ‘fuck’. By mid life it longer becomes sport/adventure but becomes a commodity and by old age you would be running after ‘Viagra’.

By the end of your life, the simple action of ‘fucking’ transforms into theory/ideology for you, propounded by yourself, which mostly made you run like rabbit all your life for better or worse and which turns into wisdom finally I guess. Transformation of mere action into wisdom needed theory in between, which you would not have invented at all, if you were adamant about not progressing to higher grades.

So, theories are nothing but some relevant tools to define and justify your actions/thoughts and society as a whole, of them being right/wrong or destructive/constructive is another debate, but nonetheless inevitable for the progressive society. Even in the absence of any theories, people would still be engage in ‘fucking’, the only thing absent would be the relevant tool to define/describe ‘fucking’ in timely and appropriate manner under the social framework, whichever you might be living in.

So, here I end my CRAP THEORY.

“Fucking” is what you guys aren’t getting enough of. Clearly.

hare shiva

I can’t believe you guys don’t seem to enjoy the simple ‘evolution of fucking’ — from thought to finish!

Arre bandhu, most surprising how “Appetite for Success” has quickly deterioted to distaste of slander. Surprinsingly, Mystichacker was not involved in this one, or was he?

Anyway, let us keep things in perspective, shall we?!

Please continue the intense debate, it is most refreshing on a dull Wednesday afternoon.

just to add fuel to the fire…

Idealogies and theories are by definition not practical or proven, hence they are- to state the obvious- ideal and theoretical.

No one theory, from politics (capitalism/communism), religious (which one is the fastest way to heaven), philosophical (confusionsim/transcendentalism), or scientific(what the f@#k IS relativity?) has singularly been able to provide an absolute solution to any human condition. So theories are good to study, but how effective they are in practice is variable depending upon the participant and the observer.

People in general don’t conform to any particular ‘theory’ entirely; they usually take the ‘best’ or most convenient aspects and apply to ‘real life’. Constructing, conforming to, and condemning ‘theories’ are typically done by social ‘scientist’ who don’t have real jobs…

before everyone gets excited, do not lump scientific theories on the same basket…..

yo
stop dissing the social scientist yo.
bhanna payo bhandai ma atti bhannu ta hunna ni!
sabai jana khali afu matrai janne…

Oye, staunch disciple of puritanical work ethic, how is it that the social scientists do not have a ‘real job’, or that what they ‘do’ is somehow below certain benchmark of contribution to society, unless, by ‘real job’ you narrowly mean working for a corporate jerk, bending over with agility so that your boss can screw you, all for a bi-weekly paycheck and some fringe benefits.

Earlier, in the same para, you paint the picture of a nonconformist in theory yet, subsequently, you revert to an insincere claim that social scientists don’t hold ‘real jobs’. Very ambiguous post indeed.

the mystic speaks. to great applause. and he probably makes sense too, but who’s listening?

mysitc bro, please accpet my offbeat complement. you are to samudaya what sahara is to africa - the identity of two sewn together into a single entity almost. but arid, vast and problematic because of size.

Theory again!

Is the ‘science’ of society possible?

Certainly not. Human beings are the creatures whose actions and interpretations are neither constant not absolute. Therefore, you cannot predict what certain people in a certain community are going to do next. Therefore, people who study society and culture can only watch these actions and interpretation, but they cannot make a blanket theory out of their observation.

If theories actually worked, Nepal would be a prosperous and stable society long ago.

The job of the social ‘scientists’ (I call them the observers of sociocultural life) is to watch and wonder. They should not mess with people’s real lives. If they want to do more besides watching and wondering, they can publish their books and spend a comfortable life with its income.

Making theories and claiming that your theories are the better way to understand society is a filthy claim which has created so much problem in this world. This claim consolidates the relation of power between the ‘scientists’ and the people who are studied. To claim that you have a better knowledge about society and culture because you have studied theories in a university is an undergraduate innocence, if not arrogance.

The most poor, powerless, and deprived person too has a perspective to understand the world around him/her. Let’s recognize the micro interpretations of people rather than dominating them with your own bogus theories stipulated mostly by the rich and powerful.

wow… i’m just impressed… it seems like ..you guys really know what you are talking about.. i’ve never heard any of my nepali brothers and sisters make so much sense… honest to God.. keep it real but keep it healthy guys.. and keep it up.. i’m having a blast listening to you guys…ciao

Oops, nobody expects my intervention you said earlier, but here I go again. Somehow I have managed to turn a one-on-one ‘intense’ debate into an orgy of ‘fucking’ crap theorists, even those that solemnly vow to anything but participating in such. But I promise to keep this one sugar-coated, as opposed to all of my previously acidic ones.

Now, theory indeed—all the previous posts that even, remotely, touch upon any necessity for slightest of explanation which undeniably include yours is symptomatic of how ‘theories’ are necessary, at least in defining certain laws, patterns, behaviors that exist in and around us. Theories help in managing/organizing great rivers of idea and channel them into something comprehensible, utilitarian (not always though) etc., instead of going back to the drawing board every time there is a slightest flaw in social design.

Fine, I agree if you consider some theories to be biased against certain segment of society, or that subscribing to any theory in rigid terms may sure be a recipe for disaster, but outrightly rejecting the space that theories occupy in greater academic and social setting is like rejecting the idea of gravitation while continuously being reminded of your inability to ‘fly high’. The plight of the pseudo-intellectuals—we are all grounded in theories my friend, even those who get their hard-on from Nihilism. Astu!

Disclaimer: Read at your own risk, especially if you’re a social ‘scientist’ and don’t have a sense of humor.

Here’s my understanding of what a social ‘scientist’ does. Let’s take a scenario and break it down.

Scenario: It’s been raining for days and a pothole forms in the road; since there have been quite a few holes around town, all the engineers and operations staff are dispatched and only a social ‘scientist’ is left in the office. So he/she is sent to ‘solve’ this problem. Upon arrival at the scene:

The ‘scientist’ makes an obvious observation: There’s a pothole.

The ‘scientist’ defines an obvious problem: Potholes are bad.

The ‘scientist’ redefines the problem: Are potholes really that bad?

The ‘scientist’ starts the analysis: What does this pothole say about our social system?

The ‘scientist’ establishes a theory: The pothole is representation of the social injustice and must be a manifestation of years of (pick one) imperialism/colonialism/slavery/women’s rights/civil rights/gay rights/animal rights because of [some convoluted explanation]; therefore the powers that be are responsible for all the shit that happens in the world.

Scenario: An unassuming pedestrian falls into the hole…

The ‘scientist’ makes an obvious observation: Someone has fallen in the hole.

The ‘scientist’ defines an obvious problem: A person shouldn’t fall in potholes.

The ‘scientist’ redefines the problem: Did he fall or did he jump or was he pushed?

The ‘scientist’ starts the analysis: What does this say about our social system?

The ‘scientist’ establishes a theory:
* If the person that fell is a minority: This represents all the years of oppression by the social elites and must be another attempt to keep the marginalized population down; therefore the powers that be are responsible for all the shit that happens in the world.

* If the person that fell is a member of the ‘elite’: He/she deserves it for all the shit that their ancestors have done to oppress the ‘people’. It must be poetic justice; therefore the powers that be are responsible for all the shit that happens in the world.

* If an animal fell in the hole: We should all be vegetarians.

Scenario: More people have fallen in the hole…

The ‘scientist’ makes an obvious observation: Many people have fallen in the hole.

The ‘scientist’ defines an obvious problem: People shouldn’t fall in potholes.

The ‘scientist’ redefines the problem: What the hell is wrong with these people?

The ‘scientist’ starts the analysis: What does this say about our social system?

The ‘scientist’ establishes a theory: This represents the neglect of the ‘people’ by the ‘oppressors’; therefore the powers that be are responsible for all the shit that happens in the world.

Scenario: Someone calls 911 and the police squad finally shows up at the scene…

The ‘scientist’ makes an obvious observation: The police are here.

The ‘scientist’ defines an obvious problem: The police should’ve been here earlier.

The ‘scientist’ redefines the problem: The police are late because they were probably first tending to the ‘elite’ areas and stopped for doughnuts.

The ‘scientist’ starts the analysis: What does this say about our social system?

The ‘scientist’ establishes a theory: This police represents the attempt by the ‘elites’ to oppress the people; they are here to violate our civil rights and dictate how things go; therefore the powers that be are responsible for all the shit that happens in the world.

Scenario: The operations squad with civil engineers and construction workers show up at the scene…

The ‘scientist’ makes… blah… blah… blah…

The ‘scientist’ establishes a theory: The engineers are just slaves working for a corporate jerk, bending over with agility so that their boss can screw them, all for a bi-weekly paycheck and some fringe benefits. The construction workers are probably illegal immigrants being taken advantage of by the horrible corporations for profit.

Scenario: The engineers configure the plan to patch up the hole and Pedro, who was paid $1.50/hr, completes the task.

The ‘scientist’ makes… blah… blah… blah…

The ‘scientist’ reports the conclusion: There is disparity, injustice, and oppression in the world because I spent years studying it and have done a Ph.D. on it. Everything in the world represents the monopoly of the ‘elites’ and how their thirst for power victimizes the less fortunate. Therefore the powers that be are responsible for all the shit that happens in the world.

Scenario: The report is submitted to the boss and he evaluates the situation…

The Boss: “What the hell is this report and how does it pertain to the problem of the potholes? This is useless, redundant crap that everyone already knows about!”

The ‘scientist’: “You don’t understand this because you are just a corporate slave blah… blah… blah… and you don’t have a Ph.D. so you don’t know the problems of the world…”

Scenario: The ‘scientist’ runs out of the office distraught and demoralized for he/she realizes how insensitive and closed minded people are on the ‘real’ issues of the world.

Hey Mystic!!

How come you manage to edit your own post? For instance:

Previously in Post#24, part of your comment went like this:

“But I promise to keep this one choortt and cheewtt.”

But after few minutes it has changed into this:

“But I promise to keep this one sugar-coated, as opposed to all of my previously acidic ones.”

That suggests — you have an administrative right to ‘Samudaya’ site, which is fine by us. But you can’t come around and edit, re-edit and embellish your own comments to make it look better while we mindlessly pound on the keys and end up most of the time posting ‘crap’ making us look like total stupid.

Now, here the playing field is little skewed and the ball always rolls to your end.

AFTER ALL VANITY IS THE BEST SIN

Then I am a sinner!

hah! elitist!!!

No need to read further than:

Act 1, scene 2: An unassuming pedestrian ‘falls into’ the ‘pothole’, damn large the ‘pothole’ have to be to accomodate a pedestrian. Thus need a scientist to ‘define’ potholes first or the act of ‘falling into’ such enormous societal potholes. Maybe the pedestrian was unwittingly shoved into the pothole by some realists. Witty post nevertheless, little too long though.

QED!

Pundit,

Actually, come to think of it, would you be interested, or Reality Check, or twaaks or anybody else for that matter, in ‘sharing’ some of the ‘administrative burden’ of samudaya? If so, write to now@samudaya.org

The reason for ‘amending’ post 25 was to simply continue the flow — not trying to sound too cute which, apparently I failed miserably since I couldn’t even spell ‘chweet’, instead of cheeewt. Ha!

hmmm

thanks for the offer M’hacker, but no thanks. I think you;re doing fine enough. And frankly, IMHO it’s just gonna be a lot of headaches. Maybe Pundit or R’Check are interested……

that wasn’t an offer. it was a dare.

Mystic!

Beside all the skirmishes, you are doing a good job. And thanks for the offer but I humbly reject it coz I know it is a major pain in the ass. I would rather have someone elses ass in discomfort than mine. And I genuinely applaud your time and energy to run this site smoothly, that’s all I can contribute—an applause.

For the good deed, your sin is absolved!

Gee, post 24 I mean, of course. I need another coffee today. Further, just to set the record straight, I have NEVER before amended my post, conceptually that is, except this morning for which I have already provided my clarification above. As a disclaimer, I usually re-edit my own post only when my poor spelling bugs me, not otherwise, must I be so stupid not to realize ‘others’ are constantly watching what I say? Certainly, that much privilege I have earned here on Samudaya.

…continuing the offer/dare thing, this is the most I can offer/dare you guys. Rest gets filtered out by my dear friend Miss S.

to miss S on 32, ooohhh I’m so afraid…..

Now let’s not go there, please! Else I have to get my Don Quixote gears out.

hehehe!!! point taken gratiously!!! but I was kidding too….

What’s happened to the discussion?

Are there no more important things to talk about at the moment?

The fact that we were able to pull 39 posts out of Miss S’s diary is itself quite an accomplishment, I think. Eagerly waiting for her to turn another page. Let’s see what precious little things she has for us!

I am eagerly waiting to read Miss S’s next piece!