मेघदूत: "नीचैर्गच्छत्युपरि दशा चक्रनेमिक्रमेण"

समर्थ शिष्या अक्का : "स्वामीच्या कृपाप्रसादे हे सर्व नश्वर आहे असे समजले. पण या नश्वरात तमाशा बहुत आहे."

G C Lichtenberg: “It is as if our languages were confounded: when we want a thought, they bring us a word; when we ask for a word, they give us a dash; and when we expect a dash, there comes a piece of bawdy.”

C. P. Cavafy: "I’d rather look at things than speak about them."

Martin Amis: “Gogol is funny, Tolstoy in his merciless clarity is funny, and Dostoyevsky, funnily enough, is very funny indeed; moreover, the final generation of Russian literature, before it was destroyed by Lenin and Stalin, remained emphatically comic — Bunin, Bely, Bulgakov, Zamyatin. The novel is comic because life is comic (until the inevitable tragedy of the fifth act);...”

सदानंद रेगे: "... पण तुकारामाची गाथा ज्या धुंदीनं आजपर्यंत वाचली जात होती ती धुंदी माझ्याकडे नाहीय. ती मला येऊच शकत नाही याचं कारण स्वभावतःच मी नास्तिक आहे."

".. त्यामुळं आपण त्या दारिद्र्याच्या अनुभवापलीकडे जाऊच शकत नाही. तुम्ही जर अलीकडची सगळी पुस्तके पाहिलीत...तर त्यांच्यामध्ये त्याच्याखेरीज दुसरं काही नाहीच आहे. म्हणजे माणसांच्या नात्यानात्यांतील जी सूक्ष्मता आहे ती क्वचित चितारलेली तुम्हाला दिसेल. कारण हा जो अनुभव आहे... आपले जे अनुभव आहेत ते ढोबळ प्रकारचे आहेत....."

Kenneth Goldsmith: "In 1969 the conceptual artist Douglas Huebler wrote, “The world is full of objects, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more.”1 I’ve come to embrace Huebler’s ideas, though it might be retooled as “The world is full of texts, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more.” It seems an appropriate response to a new condition in writing today: faced with an unprecedented amount of available text, the problem is not needing to write more of it; instead, we must learn to negotiate the vast quantity that exists. How I make my way through this thicket of information—how I manage it, how I parse it, how I organize and distribute it—is what distinguishes my writing from yours."

Tom Wolfe: "The first line of the doctors’ Hippocratic oath is ‘First, do no harm.’ And I think for the writers it would be: ‘First, entertain.’"

विलास सारंग: "… . . 1000 नंतर ज्या प्रकारची संस्कृती रुढ झाली , त्यामध्ये साधारणत्व विश्वात्मकता हे गुण प्राय: लुप्त झाले...आपली संस्कृती अकाली विश्वात्मक साधारणतेला मुकली आहे."

Friday, May 28, 2021

शृंगारिक नागकेशर...Sensuous Cobra Saffron and Perhaps Clay of Karnataka

 दुर्गाबाई भागवतांचा 'फुलभेट' हा 'प्रासंगिका' १९७५-२००३ मधील लेख मला नुसता आवडतो नाही तर तो मला अतिशय शृंगारिक वाटतो. 

नागकेशराचे (Mesua ferrea) फुल मी काही फार वेळा पहिले नसेल. त्याचा वास सुद्धा मला आठवत नाहीये. त्या फुलावर हा लेख आहे. 

त्यात दुर्गाबाई  एका साठ  वर्षाहून जास्त वय असणाऱ्या बेळगावमधील सौ. तमण्णाचार्य, ज्यांच्या घरी त्यावेळी त्या गेल्या होत्या,  यांचे वर्णन थोडक्यात करतात :

"१९३६ चे वर्ष असावे ... तमण्णाचार्यांची पत्नी साठीपलीकडे पोचली असूनही अत्यंत सुंदर होती. केस फक्त पिकले होते. पण त्या रुपेरी केसांची शोभाही अपूर्व होती. रंग सतेज गुलाबी; चेहरा अतिशय रेखीव, बांधा सुडौल, बाई अत्यंत नीटनेटकी. लुगडे चापूनचोपून नेसलेली. दागिन्यांनी मढलेली. केसांत नेहमी गजरा. नाकात चमकी. आपल्या रूपाची जाणीव क्षणभरही न विसरणारी  व्यक्ती मला अजून दुसरी दिसलीच नाही..." (पृष्ठ ३३)

मला तर लहानपणचा 'चांदोबा' आणि त्यातील एकाहून एक सौष्ठवपूर्ण स्रीया आठवल्या. 


 लोक कबूल करोत अथवा नाही, चांदोबाच्या लोकप्रियतेचे ते एक महत्वाचे कारण होते. पुढे महाबली वेताळ आणि अमर चित्र कथांमध्ये सुद्धा हा अँगल होताच. 

आणखी एक गोष्ट. 

जी. ए. कुलकर्णी: "...मी मॅट्रिकला असताना एकदा शिरसी नावाच्या गावी गेलो होतो. तेथे माझ्या दुपटीहून थोडी जास्त वयाची स्त्री दिसली होती. ती सुंदर होती असे म्हणणे understatement होईल. ती देदीप्यमान होती. तिने लग्न मात्र एका काळ्या सामान्य माणसाशी केले. तो अत्यंत बुद्धिमान होता व विशेष म्हणजे त्याला sense of humour फार आकर्षक होता. तो कुठेही गेला, तर 'मी रमाचा नवरा' अशी ओळख करून देत असे व मग मोठ्याने हसून ''असे सांगितल्याने ओळख पटते. रमालाच ओळखणारे लोक जास्त!" हा प्रेमविवाह होता आणि तो विवाह दोघांनाही अतिशय सुखाचा झाला याचे लोकांना आश्चर्य वाटे... रमा नवऱ्याआधी वारली. नंतर त्याचे जीवन हबकल्यासारखेच  झाले. त्याने नोकरी सोडली. थोडा पैसा होता  खरा, पण तोही त्याने वापरला नाही. बंगळूरला त्याच्या भावाचा कसला तरी छोटा कारखाना होता.  तेथे तो दिवसभर बसून असे म्हणे. आज रमा नाही, की विष्णुदास (हे त्याचे नाव) नाही. पण इतक्या वर्षानंतर ती आठवण झाली, की मोसमाबाहेर जाईची वेल उमलल्यासारखी वाटते. 'रमा' हे नाव आकर्षक नसावेच, पण त्याबद्दलची ही आठवण मात्र ओलसर सुगंधी आहे... "
(पृष्ठ १८९-१९०, 'जी एं. ची निवडक पत्रे', खंड १, १९९५)

मराठीतील दोन आघाडीचे आणि महत्वाचे लेखक (एक स्त्री आणि एक पुरुष) दोन  भिन्न कर्नाटकातील स्त्रियांचे कसे उत्कट पणे  वर्णन करतात हे पाहण्यासारखे आहे!

 


 

Wednesday, May 26, 2021

Saturday, May 22, 2021

The Conveyor Belt of Life, Franz Kafka and F W Taylor

On this blog I wrote on January 26 2010: "Good I didn't take Frederick Taylor seriously".

I said there:
 "I still have "Motion and Time Study: Improving Productivity" by Marvin E. Mundel, fifth edition, first published in May 1973. It was part of my Industrial Management curriculum from 1981-83.

As I thumb through it, I don't find many signs of it being read by me!

Did I miss much?

Frederick Winslow Taylor is considered the father of time and motion studies..."

I read in year 2017 Franz Kafka's views on Taylorism:

“...I was saying goodbye to my friend Leo Lederer on the Square of the Republic when Franz Kafka unexpectedly approached me.
‘I followed you all the way from Teschnov,’ he said after the usual words of greeting. ‘You were quite lost in your conversation.’
‘Leo was explaining Taylorism to me, and the division of labour in industry.’
‘It is a terrible subject.’
‘You are thinking of the enslavement of mankind?’
‘It is much worse than that. Such a violent outrage can only end in enslavement to evil. It is inevitable. Time, the noblest and most essential element in all creative work, is conscripted into the net of corrupt business interests. Thereby not only creative work, but man himself, who is its essential part, is polluted and humiliated. A Taylorized life is a terrible curse which will give rise only to hunger and misery instead of the intended wealth and profit. It is an advance . . .’
‘Towards the end of the world,’ I completed his sentence.
Franz Kafka shook his head.
‘If one could only say that with certainty. But it is by no means certain. So one can say nothing. One can only scream, stammer, choke. The conveyor belt of life carries one somewhere — but one doesn’t know where. One is a thing, an object – rather than a living organism.’...”
('Conversations with Kafka' by Gustav Janouch)

Kafka would have been glad and relieved to know that F W Taylor was fudging both his research and its results and stands today thoroughly discredited! 

Matthew Stewart  takes apart Mr. Taylor's methods in 'The Management Myth: Debunking Modern Business Philosophy', 2009:

"...Frederick Winslow Taylor told the pig-iron story so often and so well that for more than half a century after his death, critics and sympathizers alike simply assumed it was true. But it was not...

...It was not just Taylor’s method of calculation but his very approach to the problem that was deeply unscientific. A crucial feature of any activity that aspires to the name of science is verifiability: independent observers must be able to reproduce experiments and thereby confirm results. This is why journals are such an integral feature of scientific disciplines. In his pig-iron escapades, however, Taylor never supplied the data or the methods that would have allowed others to reproduce and verify his results. Instead of science, Taylor offered a kind of parody of science. He confused the paraphernalia of research—stopwatches and long division—with actual research...

...The stunning lack of accountability evident in the finale of the pig-iron tale, too, seems to have characterized Taylor’s work as a whole. Although a number of factories adopted or claimed to have adopted the “Taylor system,” the advocates of the program failed to provide convincing or comprehensive evidence that it did any real good. Indeed, it was difficult even to get agreement on exactly what the system was in the first place. In a 1914 study of 35 plants said to have adopted the Taylor system, Robert Hoxie concluded that “no single shop was found which could be said to represent fully and faithfully the Taylor system as presented in the treatise on ‘Shop Management’…and no two shops were found in which identically or even approximately the same policies and methods were established and adhered to throughout.”38 Just as the science wasn’t a science, it seems, the system wasn’t really a system....

...Taylor’s utopian vision of a new managerial order, triumphant over both capital and labor, follows a long-established pattern in rationalist thought. Plato, like Taylor, maintained that the advance of knowledge would eliminate social conflict. He, too, envisioned a utopia in which those who possess knowledge would guide society to its irenic end. He also believed that natural-born rulers were made of different stuff than the common sort. To ease the transition to his utopia, Plato supplied a myth, to be related to the people, according to which the philosopher-rulers were said to have evolved from a superior kind of mineral deposit. Taylor, on the other hand, grounded the legitimacy of his managerial ruling class on a purported physiological distinction between people with brains and those with muscle. The main difference between the ancient philosopher and the father of scientific management, it seems, is that while Plato acknowledged that his utopia was founded on a “noble lie,” Taylor insisted to the end that his was based on scientific fact.
Taylor’s ultimate aim was to advance the interests not just of the managerial elite, but of an elite within the elite—the special cadre of management experts, or consultants. Self-interest was never very far from the center of his work, and therein lay the most obdurate source of its errors. Scientific management isn’t a science; it’s a business..."



Artist: Richard Decker, The New Yorker, April 3 1943

Thursday, May 20, 2021

महाभारतात किती युद्धजखमांचे वर्णन आहे?...Homer's Iliad Has Description of About 300 Wounds

... Here, as Hektōr charged, was where noble Achilles speared him:

clean through his tender neck drove the spear point, and yet

the bronze-laden ash-wood spear never severed the windpipe,

so he could still frame words, could make a response

when down in the dust, with Achilles exulting above him:

“Hektōr, you doubtless thought, while stripping Patroklos,

you’d be safe—I was elsewhere, to me you gave not a thought.

You fool! His distant avenger, stronger by far,

was left behind by the hollow ships: that was I, who have now

unstrung your limbs! You the dogs and birds of prey

will tear apart vilely, while he will get burial from the Achaians.”

To him bright-helmeted Hektōr faintly replied: “By your life

I implore you, by your knees, by your parents, do not let

the dogs make a meal of me beside the Achaians’ ships!

Rather take the bronze and gold, unstinted, that my father

and lady mother will give you, and return my body

to be conveyed to my home, in order that the Trojans

and Trojan wives may give me my share of fire in death....

(The Iliad, Homer and Peter Green, 2015)

Margaret Macmillan, “War: How Conflict Shaped Us”, 2020:

“… The ancient Greeks knew the horrors of battle but their writers described them dispassionately, with a cool appraisal of the wounds given and received and with scant grieving over the waste of lives. Death was something that happened to warriors. In the Iliad spears and arrows go into guts or eyes or chests or groins and the men die in agony. As Homer says of one, “gasping out his life as he writhed along the ground / like an earthworm stretched out in death, blood pooling, / soaking the earth dark red…” And no heaven waits for them as a consolation; they are borne away into the dark. By contrast, in Christianity and Islam there is the promise of eternal life as a recompense for suffering and sacrifice on earth…”

रॉबिन लेन फॉक्स यांच्या 'The Invention of Medicine: From Homer to Hippocrates', २०२० मध्ये हे आहे:

“… It is not only that a doctor is pivotal to the Iliad’s plot. In the view of Galen, the greatest doctor of the second century AD, Homer was the founder and patron of medicine. This unusual tribute to an epic poet is based on a distinctive aspect of his Iliad: its description of about 300 wounds. The majority are briefly described as fatal wounds through a hero’s chest or skull, but about thirty are followed in inner and outer detail through the body. Homer’s range of bodily detail far surpasses the range in other epic traditions. Unlike most modern readers, his Greek audience was able to relate to poetry on the passage of spears through entrails, the lower stomach or, most gruesomely, the face: ‘Hector hit him under the jaw and the ear, and the spear thrust out his teeth by the roots and cut through the middle of his tongue

The emphasis of these detailed descriptions is on killing, not dying. The poem’s first audience surely included warriors who knew very well what a wound in close combat could involve. The details were not given for amusement. They are dispassionate and precise, and if there is an implicit emphasis, it tends to fall less on the victim’s poignant suffering than on the striker’s might. It is never moralized as violence, though some of the extreme wounds are surely meant to seem horrific, at times when the violence of the fighting in the poem is increasing. Three of the most gruesome are inflicted by one and the same warrior, Meriones, himself a grisly character. Even so, most of them befall victims whose past or present behaviour is relevant to what they receive.

These scenes of wounding show doctors cutting out weapons and applying medicaments. Long before any medical texts about wounds and surgery, they seem to be drawing on close observation of parts of the male body. They also relate to two critical questions for medicine’s future: the degree to which traumas and diseases were ascribed to interventions by the gods and the social status of doctors themselves.

Readers who have a medical training still admire what they regard as Homer’s ‘anatomical topography’: it impels them to analyse it clinically. This type of study began in Italy in the early seventeenth century and by 1879 Hermann Frölich, himself a military doctor, concluded that Homer must have been one too, not the top doctor in king Agamemnon’s camp but perhaps the second-in-command who could take a general view of the action. ‘Doctor Homer’ continues to be discovered by surgeons and pathologists. They count and tabulate Homeric wounds as data (53 in heads and necks or 54 thoracic, of which 70.37 per cent are fatal …) and continue to claim Homer as a surgeon like themselves. Their wound counts vary but the premise behind such studies is unsound. Homer’s descriptions of wounds owe much to phrasing inherited from his poetic predecessors. They need not owe anything to his own witnessing or surgical skill….”

"... The climactic killing of Hector by Achilles contains accurate detail too. As a superhero, Achilles first throws his massive ashen spear and then uses the same weapon for thrusting, a double use which is beyond ordinary mortals and spears nowadays. Nonetheless, he makes contact with bodily reality when he thrusts at Hector’s gullet, his unarmoured spot, described as just above the collarbone. He drives his spearpoint right through it, but the windpipe is expressly said not to be severed. As a result, Hector can utter his last poignant plea for mercy in the brief moments before he dies. The windpipe would indeed have remained untouched by such a wound, one which modern doctors credit with cutting the carotid artery and jugular vein, and so Hector could have made one last utterance..."