Measure of Strength

Any member of the male gender knows well that a question most men would have no problem in lying is about how much they can bench. For ignorants it means how much weight you can bench-press using a bar and plates. Well, it might the second in the list with the first place is obviously, well.. the lenght of.. you get it, right? Anyways, I'll be honest with you and tell you mine. It's 205 lbs. Yes, a 45 and 35 on each side of a 45 lb bar. But here are certain assumptions

a) The bench has to be wide enough fo enough back support.

b) The height of the stand should be adjustable. Or else the weight is unfavourably distributed on the shoulders or the triceps or the forearms.

c) We're talking about 1 rep max here. I can do 1 set with 5-6 reps of 185 lb

I really don't need a spotter. Infact I lift less if I have a spotter unless I am very comfortable with him. I ususally go to the gym alone as my male friends are contend playing tennis !!!.

Till recently I was under the impression that strength was measured only by bench statistics. The rule of thumb, as I came to believe that if you could bench more than your body weight, you were strong. I was feeling pretty happy about myself. Alas, all that came crumbling down when I read on a bodybuilding website that bench press alone wouldn't give me the entry into the order of strong men. You had to squat your body weight too. Damn! I am the most weak kneed person you would ever find. Not just when asking a girl out. Yes, infront of the squat rack too. I can barely do 135!.

P-Modernism

When I was in my late teens and early 20's (my high school and college years), the hallowed word of postmordernism was one heard all over the place. Articles and books that taked about this topic in length were plenty then. The city I was living in, Thrissur, called the cultural capital of Kerala (my state) was overpopulated with beard-sporting, khadi kurta-clad intellectuals, often jibed by the public as 'buji', short for 'budhijeevi, a word in vernacular signifying a pretentious erudite. I had a secret desire to be part of that clan. I knew I had no literary skills, but it wasn't really necessary for membership.

Some of the requirements where:

You must correctly pronounce "Sartre", "Camus" and "Heidegger".
You must user the word "Andardhara", which means innner current, wherever you could.

And, of course you had to know what postmodernism was. Atleast you had to be convincing. Internet was still nascent and we're talking about pre-google days here. Moreover the dial up connection from home was not viable, as it incurred STD (equivalent of long distance in the US, but varies with distance) charges to the nearest city with an internet gateway. So magazines and books were the only refuge left. One the first books I read that talked about about Postmodernism was "The Marriage of Sense and Soul" by Ken Wilber, considered by many as one of the greatest thinkers of modern day. This book was NOT about postmodernism. The intention of the book was the integration of religion and science, a formidable endeavor few would even attempt. Like the people who had ventured before him, Wilber fails too. He essentialises religion into the 'Great Nest' as in Eastern mysticism and completely fails to capture the emotions of fear, guilt and desire for everlasting afterlife that are at the core of the religions of the Judaistic origin. Science is misinterpreted as entirely of empirical and reductionist nature. The only opinion Wilber has to offer postmodernism is ridicule. Do not read it to know postmordernism. If you are one of the many who could read through Tao of Physics in less than 6 months, I think he might be interesting to you. My present knowledge of Postmodernism, is through the internet (thanks to google), which I think is itself truly a postmodern phenomenon. Let me break it down in very simple terms what I understand of all this stuff.

Modernism - Focussed, rational and close to science and technology. Rejects sentimentality. Stresses on utility, meaning and direction. Believes everthing should be directed toward the "good" of the human society. And the "good" is always expected to be defined by the elite few (like the few who have experienced the outside in Plato's allegory of the cave) and the majority expected to accept that definition. Tries to potray poeple, events and ideas in black and white. Judgemental. Promotes univalence in everything. Howard Roark (the superhero in Ayn Rand's FountainHead) is the epitome for mordernism.

Postmodernism - Eclectic and accommodating. Is pluralistic and cosmopolitan. Instead of
trying to be normative, it tries to explain and shed a nuetral light on the subject. Can be accused of being playful, aimless and irresponsible. Extreme Postmodernism views science and even reason, as just different paradigms. It doesn't frown at recognizing pop culture and its importance and influence. Postmodern art forms tend to be part of a genre and also talk about the genre. They are conscious of their shortcomings, their failure to portray reality. Postmodernism tries to debunk the notion of high and low culture and sees diffent cultures as diferent areas on the same plain.

Again, don't get the impression that postmodernism is all anti-modernism. It is critique of modernism.
Most people today have been influenced by Postmodernism heavily. That the same person enjoys the catchy beer commercial as much as Don Giovanni is proof enough that the field has been levelled (well, the Don Giovanni part may be a little far fetched, but I hope you get the point).

To be continued..( I've just finished my second drink of a really good Jamaican Rum. I should go to sleep now)

Deep Point

It's clear that people have given a mandate against the neo-capitalistic economic reforms carried out by the various governments for the last 14 years. The new breed of Indian bourgeoisie who run 'yatras' on the infromation superhighway(that includes me to an extent), have convinced themselves that they are the voice of India. Wrong. The rest of the people in India just spoke otherwise. From the posts I read, this still has not been a sufficient jolt to shake the netizens out of their deep somnambulism. The media, was elated about the economic prosperity which was very much like the emperor's new clothes for the common man. The commentary in the Telegraph(UK) about the Indian elections was poignant.
""India Shining" shed its rays only on that sector of the population that was epitomised for the West by software outsourcing and call centres in states such as Karnataka and Andra Pradesh. For the nearly two thirds of Indians who live off the land, among whom Mrs Gandhi campaigned vigorously, little had changed under BJP rule. Their prime requirements are running water, electricity and jobs. Lacking those, they used their votes to remind New Delhi and the wider world that development in their country is very uneven."

The show of the left has been impressive, though it can attributed to regional issues and disillussionment with their rivals. Even the most optimist among the leftists would have not expected such an outcome. They are all set to share power with the Congress. What does this situation mean to India and its future? One fact is certain - economic reforms over the last 14 years cannot be reversed. They could be slowed down though and that's what the left would like to do. More spending would mean more taxes and the less fiscal discipline. More taxes aren't totally a bad thing in my opinion. Higher income tax on the salaried class was Yashwant Sinha's approach. That is still the sane thing to do.

Another ministry the left would be looking at would be HRD. Murali Manaohar Joshi had started the process of saffronizing NCERT and all the educational institutions in the name of national pride. That will be reveresed. I even expect Romila Thapar, the historian Sangh loves to hate will be given the protfolio. And with scant presence of the Sangh ideologues in the parliament, this will not atract attention. This will piss NRI's off because they are the most in need of this 'national pride' thing.