Musings on Writing – Part 1 – The Ideal Writer

THE “IDEAL” WRITER 

Musings on Writing – Part 1

By

VIKRAM KARVE

During my student days I spent a lot of time in libraries as I loved to read, and from time to time, if I found something interesting, especially a quote or a aphorism or a proverb or anything that appealed to me, I jotted it down in my diary which I used to carry along with me.

This morning, while rearranging my bookcase and cleaning my books, I browsed through an ancient diary and randomly opened a page. To me delight I found that I had jotted down a description or rather a definition of an Ideal Writer by John Henry Newman (1801-1890) [Cardinal Newman]

THE IDEAL WRITER – A Definition by Cardinal Newman

He writes passionately, because he feels keenly; forcibly, because he conceives vividly; he sees too clearly to be vague; he is too serious to be otiose; he can analyze his subject, and therefore he is rich; he embraces it as a whole and in its parts, and therefore he is consistent; he has a firm hold of it, and therefore he is luminous. 

When his imagination wells up, it overflows in ornament; when his heart is touched, it thrills along his verse. 

He always has the right word for the right idea, and never a word too much. 

If he is brief, it is because few words suffice; when he is lavish of them, still each word has its mark, and aids, not embarrasses, the vigorous march of his elocution. 

He expresses what all feel, but all cannot say; and his sayings pass into proverbs among his people, and his phrases become household words and idioms of their daily speech, which is tessellated with the rich fragments of his language, as we see in foreign lands the marbles of Roman grandeur worked into the walls and pavements of modern palaces.

In a nutshell, we must strive to ensure that our writing is accurate, logical, clear, simple and brief and try to develop a writing style that is simple yet effective.

If you find the definition of an “ideal writer” by Cardinal Newman a bit too prolix and verbose, then here is a simple description by  Charles Caleb Colton:

“That writer does the most who gives his reader the most knowledge and takes from him the least time”

This seems to be an “engineer’s definition” – focussing on the “efficiency” of writing – the knowledge versus time ratio – maximum knowledge in the least possible time. 

Or maybe – a good writer imparts maximum creative satisfaction to a reader and takes from him the least time. 

I think the same applies even more to blogging too.

HAPPY WRITING (and Happy Blogging) 

VIKRAM KARVE

Copyright © Vikram Karve 
1. If you share this post, please give due credit to the author Vikram Karve
2. Please DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. Please DO NOT Cut/Copy/Paste this post
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

Disclaimer:

1. This story is a fictional spoof, satire, pure fiction, just for fun and humor, no offence is meant to anyone, so take it with a pinch of salt and have a laugh. 

2. All Stories in this Blog are a work of fiction. Events, Places, Settings and Incidents narrated in the stories are a figment of my imagination. The characters do not exist and are purely imaginary. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Copyright Notice:

No part of this Blog may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Blog Author Vikram Karve who holds the copyright.

Copyright © Vikram Karve (all rights reserved)

This is a Revised Version of Article Written by me Vikram Karve in the year 2012 and Posted Online Earlier many times, including at url: http://karvediat.blogspot.com/2012/08/jotting-from-my-ancient-diary.html etc

Dating Guide – Go on a “Date” – Only if You Want to “Mate”

DATING – in a Nutshell

Are you thinking of “Dating” someone…?

Don’t “Date” unless you want to “Mate”

Yes – in a nutshell – that is my advice to you:

Don’t “Date” unless you want to “Mate” 

You don’t agree with me…?

Looks like you are “out of date” on “Dating”

Let me give you a “refresher course” on “Dating”….

DATING GUIDE

Romantic Musings

A Fictional Spoof

By

VIKRAM KARVE 

WHAT IS “DATING”…?

A “girl” asked me out on a “date”.

Since – I am “out of date” on “dating” – I decided to re-check the meaning of the term “dating”.

So – I “Googled” the word “Dating” – and the top hit was the Wikipedia Page on “Dating”.

Here is the “definition” of “Dating” from the Wikipedia Page on Dating (accessed on 07 March 2016):

Dating is a part of the human mating process – whereby – two people meet socially for companionship – beyond the level of friendship – or with the aim of each assessing the other’s suitability as a partner in an intimate relationship or marriage. 

Later – there is an elaboration:

One of the main purposes of dating is for two or more people to evaluate one another’s suitability as a long term companion or spouse.

From the definition of “dating” above – I surmise that: 

The principal objective of “Dating” is – “to assess the suitability of the “Dating Partner” – for an “Intimate Relationship” – or as a “Prospective Wife/Husband” 

The aim of “Dating” is to assess the “suitability” of the “Dating Partner”: 

1. For an “Intimate Relationship” 

or 

2. As a “Prospective Wife/Husband” 

So – in the light of the definition of dating – I reflected on the “moot question”:

“Should I accept the girl’s “dating proposal” and go out on a “date” with her...?”

Well – let me ruminate on the two salient aspects of the “dating” definition: 

DATING FOR MARRIAGE

I am married.

In fact – I am “much married” for around 36 years to the same wife.

And – I do not intend to divorce my wife and marry the “girl” who has asked me out for a “date”.

Actually – even if I want to marry the “girl” – it may not be feasible – since my wife may not be very eager to divorce me.

So – why should I waste time and resources “assessing” the girl’s “suitability” as a “prospective wife” – when I know that marrying her is not possible.

Now – does the “girl” want to “date” me in order to assess my “suitability” as a “Prospective Husband”...? 

Well – you will have to ask her that. 

DATING FOR “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP”

I am married. 

And – I am a conservative prude. 

Yes – Dear Reader – I am a “Puritan” Prude

So – as far as having an extra-marital “intimate relationship” is concerned – the less said the better. 

CAN I GO ON A “DATE” WITH THE “GIRL”...? 

Now – let me come back to the “moot question”: 

A “girl” asked me out on a “date”. 

Should I accept the girl’s “dating proposal”...? 

Should I go out on a “date” with her...?”

As far as going on a “date” with the “girl” is concerned – in light of the definition of dating – for me – both objectives of “dating” don’t seem to be feasible – at least for me to achieve.

1. I cannot marry the girl – since I am already married (Legal Hurdle)

2. I am not inclined to have an “intimate relationship” with the girl – owing to my conservative moral values (Ethical Hurdle)

So – with both options closed (“marriage” and “intimate relationship”) – sadly – for me – the pleasure of “dating” is ruled out. 

CAN YOU TAKE YOUR SPOUSE ON A DATE...?  

Well – you may console me and say: 

“Why don’t you take your wife out on a “date”…?”

Come on – don’t be crazy.

Do you want me to assess the “suitability” of my own wife for an “intimate relationship” – after being married to her for 36 years…? 

A “DATELESS” LIFE

So – “Dating” is ruled out for me – both inside marriage and outside marriage.

Yes – no “intra-marital” dating for me. 

And – no “extra-marital” dating for me. 

In fact – in my entire life – I have never had the experience of “dating”.

So – no “pre-marital” dating for me. 

I have had zero dates – “pre-marital”, “intra-marital” or “extra-marital” 

Yes – I have had a “zero dating life”.

And sadly – I am destined to live a “dateless” life. 

MORAL OF THE STORY 

Let me summarize and recap the 3 salient aspects of “Dating”: 

1. “Dating” is a part of the Human “Mating” Process

So – Don’t “Date” unless you want to “Mate”...

2. The principal objective of “Dating” is “to assess the suitability of the “Dating Partner” for an “Intimate Relationship” or as a prospective Wife/Husband...” 

So – Don’t “Date” someone unless you are considering having an “Intimate Relationship” with that person or are serious about “marrying” that person... 

3. “Dating” your own Spouse is infructuous 

Do you want to assess the suitability of your own husband/wife for an “Intimate Relationship” or as a prospective Husband/Wife...?

AFTERTHOUGHT

Dear Prospective Girlfriends: 

All that I have written above is “theory”. 

I don’t practice what I preach. 

So – if you ask me out on a “date” – I would be most delighted to accept your dating proposal. 

Come – shall we go out on a “date”...?  

VIKRAM KARVE

Copyright © Vikram Karve
1. If you share this post, please give due credit to the author Vikram Karve
2. Please DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. Please DO NOT Cut/Copy/Paste this post
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

Disclaimer:

1. This story is a fictional spoof, satire, pure fiction, just for fun and humor, no offence is meant to anyone, so take it with a pinch of salt and have a laugh.

2. All Stories in this Blog are a work of fiction. Events, Places, Settings and Incidents narrated in the stories are a figment of my imagination. The characters do not exist and are purely imaginary. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Copyright Notice:

No part of this Blog may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Blog Author Vikram Karve who holds the copyright.

Copyright © Vikram Karve (All Rights Reserved)

© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

This is a revised version on my story posted online earlier in my Academic and Creative Writing Journal Vikram Karve Blog on March 8, 2016 at url: http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2016/03/dating-guide-should-i-go-on-date.html and http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2016/09/dating-guide-what-is-dating.html  and http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2017/03/can-married-people-date.html and http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2017/08/are-you-out-of-date-on-dating.html and https://karve.wordpress.com/2017/08/29/dont-date-unless-you-want-to-mate/ etc

CATWOE Stakeholder Model of Soft Systems Management

THE SOFT SYSTEMS APPROACH
ROOT DEFINITION and CATWOE MODEL
By
VIKRAM KARVE


The first step in Soft Systems Methodology ( SSM ) is to formulate the Root Definition of the System you are studying, analysing, designing, evaluating or even quality assuring, inspecting or certifying.

ROOT DEFINITION

A Root Definition is a structured description of a system. It is a clear statement of activities which take place (or might take place) in the organisation being studied.
 
A properly structured root definition comprises three elements [what, how, why] and is of the form: 

A System to do X, by (means of) Y, in order to achieve Z.

X – What the System does
Y – How it does it
Z – Why it is being done

The 'what' is the immediate aim of the system,
The 'how' is the means of achieving that aim,
The 'why' is the longer term aim of the purposeful activity.

CATWOE analysis helps in proper formulation of a Root Definition.

CATWOE is a mnemonic which helps identify and categorize all stakeholders [people, processes, environment, entities] of the System being analysed for formulating the Root Definition.

CATWOE MODEL 

C = CUSTOMERS OR CLIENTS
A = ACTORS OR AGENTS
T = TRANSFORMATION PROCESS
W =WELTANSCHAUUNG or WORLD VIEW
O = OWNERS
E = ENVIRONMENT

To elaborate a bit:

C: The ‘customers of the system’ , clients or System Beneficiaries. In this context ‘customers’ means those who are on the receiving end of whatever it is that the system does. Is it clear from your definition of “C” as to who are the beneficiaries of the system?

A: The ‘actors’, meaning those who would actually carry out the activities envisaged in the notional system being defined. Actors transform inputs into outputs.

T: The ‘transformation process’. What does the system do to the inputs to convert them into the outputs?

W: Weltanschauung - The ‘world view’ that lies behind the Root Definition; the perspective from which the Root Definition if formulated. Putting the system into its wider context can highlight the consequences of the overall system. For example the system may be in place to assist in making the world environmentally safer, and the consequences of system failure could be significant pollution.

O: The ‘owner(s)’ – The person(s) who has commissioned the system and who has sufficient formal power over the system to stop it existing if they so wished (though they won’t usually want to do this).

E: The ‘environmental constraints’. These include things such as ethical limits, regulations, financial constraints, resource limitations, limits set by terms of reference, and so on.


CATWOE Analysis yields a more elaborate all encompassing Root Definition of the form:

A System owned by O to do W by A by means of T given the constraints of E in order to achieve X for C.

A briefer version of Root Definition is:  a T system in which A do W for C 


Illustrative Example of application of CATWOE Model 


EDUCATION SYSTEM CHARACTERIZATION
 
Here is a CATWOE Model of a hypothetical Higher Education System [a University or College]:

C – Students
A – Teachers
T – School Pass Outs are transformed into Graduates [Degree Holders]
W – Graduation [a Degree] is a means of assurance to potential employers that the Graduate [Degree Holder] possesses a specified standard of proficiency and skills in the domain of qualification.
O – The University or College Governing Body or Top Management
E – The Prescribed Educational, Academic Quality, Assessment and Accreditation Standards and Requirements.

Now this CATWOE Analysis may yield a Root Definition that this particular Higher Education Institution is a university owned system to award degrees to students (X) who successfully qualify assessment (Y) in accordance with prescribed standards in order to certify assurance (Z) to potential employers that the students possess the requisite proficiency, capabilities and skills. 
 
Is this Root Definition okay or is there something amiss...?

Suppose we define Potential Employers [or Industry] as CUSTOMERS [C] and include students as ACTORS [A] along with teachers – won’t we then get a more apt Root Definition and consequently realise a better Educational System in keeping with current needs and ground reality...?

It is vital to accord apt attention to optimizing the System Root Definition for the System under consideration for best results and in this the CATWOE Model is very helpful.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

At a recent alumni meet of a prestigious Engineering College I asked a few recently passed out alumni [who were working for a leading IT company for just over a year] as to how much of what was taught in his four year Engineering Degree Course in his college was useful in his work.

They said: “Less than 5% (five percent)” – which means that his employer had to invest heavily [almost 95%] in his training and the rest he had to learn on the job. 
 
Maybe the educational institution needs to introspect and have a relook at its CATWOE Model and reformulate its ROOT DEFINITION and restructure its curriculum and revitalize its pedagogic methodology to meet the challenges of current needs and envisage seamless integration of fresh BE and B. Tech. Engineering Graduates into the industry.

A Systems Approach to higher education incorporating increased partnership and congruence between the industry and universities is the sine qua non of optimal human resource development in science and technology.


The disconnect between the industry and the educational system must be bridged. The Soft Systems Approach incorporating the CATWOE Model is ideally suited for analysing and optimising education systems since all education systems are Human Activity System (HAS) and not Hard Systems.


THE SOFT SYSTEMS APPROACH
ROOT DEFINITION and CATWOE MODEL 
By 
VIKRAM KARVE

This article written by me in 1991 and posted online by me a number of times including at url: http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2011/08/system-analysis-soft-approach.html

Copyright © Vikram Karve 1991
Vikram Karve has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work.
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

Strike - How Did the Term STRIKE originate...?

STRIKE 

Do You Know How the Term STRIKE Originated...?

Going on a "strike" is a common phenomenon - especially in India.

From time to time everyone goes on strike - industrial workers, bankers, doctors, railwaymen, transporters, traders, students - even retired military veterans were on a hunger strike for OROP.

In a democracy - going on a strike as a protest and for making demands is quite normal. 

There is only one exception - Armed Forces Personnel.

Military Personnel (Army Soldiers, Navy Sailors and Air Force Airmen) are not permitted to strike work.

Yes - everyone can strike work - except military personnel.

If Military Personnel go on Strike - it is considered a Mutiny.

However - do you know that the word STRIKE originated from the Military - more specifically - from the Navy. 

Navy Sailors threatened to "strike down the sails" and immobilise their ships.

Yes - the word "Strike" was first recorded in 1768 - when British Sailors threatened to strike (take down) the sails on their ships - and cease all work until their grievances were settled. 

This they did - and a new word "Strike" entered the language. 

Quite ironical - isn't it...? 

Those who invented the word "Strike" are not permitted to go on Strike. 

The word STRIKE originated in the Navy (Military) 

The irony is - today - everyone is allowed to go on strike - except the Navy (Military) 

Ha Ha - those who invented the technique of strike cannot go on strike...