Rahul Verma: My Petty Bits

Step 1: I coin a term to add something to the way things are done in a field.
Step 2: I advocate my way and that in some aspects it is better than the existing way.
Step 3: I find the existing way completely wrong and advocate others against it.

… Some years later …

Step 4: Existing way? What’s that? It has been my way all along.

Epilogue: … Some years later …

Step 5: Having gotten rid of the olds ways, I also advocate against new ways as inferior to mine.

Step 6: This is now outside my control. Somebody is doing exactly what I did to others. I can not advocate harmony as I never created that. I can not vouch for co-existence because I was looking for monopoly. I am on stage, but as a mute actor staring at the sky, hoping the audience understands my predicament.

The above is a method of hostile takeover. The epilogue is how it eventually backfires.

No way is perfect. No ways are perfect put together as well, but together they get one step closer towards perfection.

Plurality
——–

Plurality is no fun to discuss, there’s no punchline it hits as compared to controversial, witty statements one can make in extreme stances on a subject.

Can I try this?
Yes.

What about that?
Of course.

Which is the best one?
Don’t know. Try things out.

But someone told me…
They may be right. But that’s not **your** story. You figure it out yourself before you form an opinion.

Plurality is common-sensical, it’s simple, it removes biases/agendas by design, it gives you multiple ways of solving problems, it gives you freedom – so boring!

Plurality is so unrewarding that one can not take credit for it. It has existed for thousands of years in philosophy. So, sorry: no patenting, no battles over who owns the word, no reinterpretations to fit a narrative.