On the Dilemma of Trust

               Confidence level is a measure of reliability of the system. The higher the confidence level, the more the reliability of the system. In real cases, 100 % reliability is never achieved. This demands the system to be tested, with an appropriate level of confidence under a predefined margin of error.

                         One type of testing employed in engineering sector is the in-service inspection. It is typically a test or series of tests performed on a frequency established by the manufacturer based on prior experience with the system/equipment/component or upon engineering analysis of the probable failure rate for the equipment.

            
                        A good testing program will maintain a record of test results and maintenance actions taken. These data will be evaluated for trends and serve as the basis for decisions on appropriate testing frequency, need to replace or upgrade equipment and performance improvement opportunities. This type of testing allows the system to be working as usual while the test is being performed.

               What is Trust ?

                     When a system behaves within the predicted limits of its defined performance, it is said to be trustworthy or reliable. It doesn't mean the system is 100% reliable or it will continue to work as it had before. When the behaviour of the system is not according to the expected characteristic curves, the user will start to panic. But here is the question. Is the system faulty according to a non biased, inertial frame of reference? In other words, aren't we to blame for not able to correctly understand the system ?

                This is one point of view that can be challenged. First of all, the system is faulty if it doesn't serve our purpose. And this demands we clearly define our intentions about the system. On the other hand, if we adopted the system or if the system is subjected to external forces, its variation from our predicted behaviour can be attributed to our lack of understanding or errors in expectations of the system.

          
               The solution is periodic testing and analysis of the system. The variations in the external parameters must be taken into account and testing must be performed of known and unknown signals. The feedback of the system must be analyzed and new interface models must be made. This will increase our understanding of the system and thus reliability itself.

          

               Applying this to social dynamics, we can see that any relationship that is build on trust is inevitably subjected to doubt. Doubt is not a bad thing. Trust without doubt is akin to apathy. And saying that you trust someone without trying to understand them is in itself, a form of lie. A cruelty such as this should not be committed to the person on the other end.

                 But is trusting someone completely isn't the best thing to do? The answer is, No. Complete trust is not a real thing in the world of organic life. When pushed to the extreme, all living beings will re-evaluate their priorities and choose its own survival. This is why keeping a constant vigilance is absolutely necessary of all mortal creatures.

On the constantly changing...

" A diary is a long winded letter you write to an old person who used to be you "

I am constantly baffled by people saying, " You've changed a lot" . It's reached a point of annoyance, that I had no choice but to analyze the person I used to be. And the conclusion is...

I have changed.

But is it wrong to change? 

            Let's look at this from the perspective of the Universe. Everything changes here. Everything must change, to something new, to something strange. A state of pure homeostasis is something that exists only in ideal conditions. Matter changes into energy, and energy transforms into matter. Space and time are so entwined, that we cannot tell the changes taking place between them. But the Universe doesn't provide any direct answers to our problem. Or so I thought at first...

Equilibrium : A condition in which all acting influences are canceled by others, resulting in a stable, balanced, or unchanging system. This is a concept we are introduced to way back in schools. But what exactly is it? Does equilibrium means no change at all ?

The answer is - No

                 In fact, Equilibrium is the epitome of change. Here, changes happen so fast, that we can only accept defeat in noting these changes.Soon the new state of the system becomes our 'unchanged' condition, our new 'normal'. Think of it this way; an ocean when looked from far away looks so peaceful. But we know it is not. With a change in our Point of View, we believe in an ever constant expanse of water. And just like a frog sitting in slowly boiling water doesn't realize its own oncoming demise, none of us realize how much we have changed from the person we used to be, until someone points it out.

               Change is inevitable - for matter, energy, life, dreams - everything. But what does it mean to us, as a species desperately trying to make sense of the world? Should I feel sad, or angry, or happy, knowing that I am not the same person I was a moment ago? 

    

     It is unfair and illogical to expect a sentient being to always cling to same personality traits through out its life time.

             We do not change because we live, it is because we change that we feel alive


           If you truly want to enjoy an ordinary life, you must constantly evolve. And any person who seems to be the same all through the years, is actually pretending, and that by definition, a lie.  

       Being true to our nature, we must surrender to the ever changing elusiveness that is our Universe. Remember, without change, we are all as good as dead, and I'd rather change and be alive, than remain the same and, well, you know, not dead !

 

On Being Original...

We use the term 'original' and 'genuine' in our lives in order to cause some profound impact in conversation. But what is this 'being original' truly mean? What does it take to be true to one's self?

                        The Theory of Fundamental Good tells us that all are born good, and that our actions which are considered evil, are our own doing. That is, they do not reflect our true selves. A lesser known theory, the Theory of Fundamental Evil says that, all are born evil, and in order to be good, we must deny our natural instincts and desires. Even then, we will not be original, but a reflection of the social norms that exist in that time and place.

                     If being neither good nor evil is not our original form, then what are we truly? More importantly, are we truly bound to either one of these fractions only? And why should we define ourselves as either good or bad? This is the fundamental question that separates a child from an adult.

                       A child or a newborn is capable of questioning its existence. From the very moment it is aware of its surroundings, a baby will try to find things that are similar to it. An example of such process is as follows;

1) Moving/ stationary object ?
2) Bright or dark colour ?
3) Similar body shapes ?
4) Silent of making sound ? etc..

                   From this point onward, it is trying to find a place  it belongs. And this process continues till it dies. And this is the thought at the fundamental heart of all human deeds. But unfortunately, sooner of later, everyone give up their quest to find a kindred at heart. And they simply let the society decide who they are. And thus comes the question of being 'real'.

                 No individual fully understands themselves. They can only, at the most, understand other people. This third person perspective is what drives the most brutal aspect of human society - the need to control one's surroundings,  but more on that another time...

                      If we can only be defined by others, then being true to ourselves means we need to be true to others as well. It's only through the eyes of those who we trust that we can see ourselves. And this requires a level of understanding greater than we normally find in the society.

                               In our perilous quest to define ourselves, we inadvertently end up in the company of the few, leaving behind the masses of acquaintances. And whom we finally deem comrades will be as close to a mirror as possible. To look past the numerous veils of personalities, to pierce through the deceptions, and the lies, and the shields one put up to protect themselves, is something equivalent to cutting a rock with a needle tip. Beneath our poised appearances, we are looking for a sense of belonging... And the funniest fact of all is,

                             " We do not find ourselves, we simply invent ourselves "