Rencontres - Love at first sight

So I did that which I thought was most dignified. I pushed back the crowds, and, passing from the rear, walked down a living avenue of people until I came in front of the semicircle of Arabs, in the front of which stood the white man with the grey beard. As I advanced slowly towards him, I noticed he was pale, looked wearied, had a grey beard, wore a bluish cap with a faded gold band round it, had on a red-sleeved waistcoat and a pair of grey tweed trousers. I would have run to him, only I was a coward in the presence of such a mob---would have embraced him, only he being an Englishman, I did not know how he would receive me; so I did what cowardice and false pride suggested was the best thing---walked deliberately to him, took off my hat, and said:---
"Dr. Livingstone, I presume?"

What happens when you wait for 2 years in the deepest darkest jungle of Africa looking for a lost soul and come up with this ? Pathetic I presume . But they are still inscribed in words of gold in the annals of world history.

How lame I think Stanley must have felt when he must have actually realized what he had said. But meetings are supposed to be liked that. They are supposed be the glances that throw you off balance. Give you the kick in your life , which your coffee cup cannot. Raise you from the slumber and suddenly jerk you out of your reverie.

But true meetings are like that ... Those of the heart that is. Love at first sight is a myth which truly has to be explored in depth before we can actually proceed further on our much anticipated discussion on this topic.

Love at first sight is supposed to be a myth perpetrated

• by those hopeless who suddenly realize that an alternate sex exists other than them
• As a pickup lines for those who have no ability to pick-up
• By horny individuals waiting to get into others' pants asap.

I as an individual feel that it is just a silly concept dreamt up by those driven by the basal feelings to give a respectability to the concept they feel creeping up their brains universally known as lust.

It is a fact universally accepted that a person in need of some procreation rather than rectreation will be using this following argument. Though other studies like one done in Ohio State University on 164 students prove that people decide what kind of relationship they want in the first few minutes, I truly doubt the veracity of the claims. We may be using our percpetory organs to form our first sensations but how much do they fit in with our models of rationality and behavior.

Maybe if you are someone unlike me you may live your life based on the first 30 seconds of that fateful day. Such things are difficult to believe but they do happen... Logic died yesterday.

What does that mean ? After all this rambling can I come to a conclusion of what I want to say ? My answer to it is DOES IT REALLY MATTER ? We can come up with all the studies in the world to prove or disrove any theory.

God Exists... is a logic I frequently use to fight my own logic and turn everything upside down.

See existence of God is a matter of Faith, Hence if you sought proof of god's existence you couldn't have found it as 'faith excludes proof'. However if you found proof God does exist you will not be able to find him as again our axiom holds.

But how is it possible you shout ! Isn't Logic the greatest gift to man by the greeks. You still think it is wine , but you keep quiet in the multitude of voices and show them godel's theorem

For any consistenet formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement that is true but not provable in the theory. That is, any consistent theory of a certain expressive strength is incomplete.

For any formal theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent

These are two of godel's theorem known as incompleteness theorem. Though not as celebrated as much as Fermat's theorems I feel that they form very important parts of our undersatnding of life, universe and everything. The implication is that there is no consistent formal system which proves for every question A either "the answer to A is yes" or "the answer to A is no". Hence A may have any answer we want - because we can show that

Any system which is consistent within itself is actually inherently inconsistent.

So looking finally in what we started I figure we have not gone anywhere far except having a meaningless insightful discusssion on anything which caught my fancy. So I finally resolve to make things more meaningful next time and take a more structured approach and try and get some more newer readers. till then

Au Revior .... a bientot ( damn the accnet marks, can't get it anywhere )

[godel's theorem is all very disturbing when you finally think that what I have written is all rubbish and you are damn sure you are right based on your learnings, axioms and systems and Godel just points out that your system is inconsitent and I am brilliant in my writing...the reverse holds but if you think that the first time I will be so delighted I won't argue with you]