Thursday, December 03, 2015
Wednesday, December 02, 2015
A New Beginning
Many years have passed since I started this blog. I did not post even a tiny fraction of what I thought I would. But the idea has stayed with me and evolved. From a poorly thought out kernel it is now a relatively decent notion with aspects and contours encompassing a fair space. I feel that I can do a much better (and more interesting) job of things now. In the meantime, the blog also withstood a very long wave of hacker/ spammer attacks, with all sorts of commercial and other posts being forcibly posted on it. So here is to a new beginning.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Maya
If human life was wiped off the face of the earth it would make no difference to the universe. It would go on exactly as before, the various heavenly bodies charting their precise metronomic paths across eternal and infinite space. If all life was wiped off the earth it would still make no difference to the universe. If the earth was destroyed, shattered into tiny bits and ejected into meteoric trajectories traversing the far corners of the galaxy, it would still make no difference. No difference at all. Nothing would change. The vastness of space would remain unruffled. If the solar system were destroyed, the sun collapsed into itself, the size of a football field, the planets crushed into it, it would barely disturb the immediate neighbourhood: perhaps somewhat like thunder rolling in the near distance of your house. Any place even fifty miles away only sees the flashes of occasional lightning. Places at a cosmic equivalent of this distance would only notice the phenomenon if they were looking up, and may even need specialised instruments to discover the event. Like we need special instruments to “view” supernovae and black holes.
Billions of years of existence, millions of years of life, hundreds of thousands of years of human “development” wiped out in a flash and no one to see, to lament, to mourn and to remember. No archaeological remains to prove that the earth had existed, teeming with life, with differences, with love, with strife. No trace of the poetic masterpieces or the paintings or sculptures, the haunting ragas, the gripping prose, or the masterful tracts of reasoned conviction left for subsequent discovery.
Friday, July 15, 2011
On Precision or The Importance of Riyaz
'sa' is not just a point in the sargam but a range of points. Similarly, a roti or a chapaati is not 'cooked' at just one precise point but is deemed cooked within a range of cooked-ness. Most of us go through life hitting 'sa' within the range of saaas, and eating roti that is 'cooked' because it is within the range of cooked-ness. But that does not mean that there is not a 'sa' within the range of saaas that is more 'sa' than all the other saaas. In other words, the precise 'sa', or the exact 'sa', or the pure 'sa'.
How does one come to know of this 'sa'? Naturally, from listening to the great masters. It does not matter if you have sur gyan or not. When I listen to Malikarjun Mansur sing, I can tell I am listening to the pure 'sa', the precise 'sa', exact 'sa'. And, of course, the pure re ga ma pa dha ni too. I can feel the difference even though I am not versed in sur gyan, or in the shashtriya sangeet pranali. Just like I can tell the tuneful from the tuneless I can tell the pure 'sa' of a master from the 'sa' of those who just sing tunefully. The notes have a bell like clarity that penetrates to the core of one's being, making it quiver. And I can tell when the roti I am eating is cooked just right. It melts in the mouth and tastes like heaven.
How does one come to know of this 'sa'? Naturally, from listening to the great masters. It does not matter if you have sur gyan or not. When I listen to Malikarjun Mansur sing, I can tell I am listening to the pure 'sa', the precise 'sa', exact 'sa'. And, of course, the pure re ga ma pa dha ni too. I can feel the difference even though I am not versed in sur gyan, or in the shashtriya sangeet pranali. Just like I can tell the tuneful from the tuneless I can tell the pure 'sa' of a master from the 'sa' of those who just sing tunefully. The notes have a bell like clarity that penetrates to the core of one's being, making it quiver. And I can tell when the roti I am eating is cooked just right. It melts in the mouth and tastes like heaven.
Getting it just right is a matter of practice, or, as a musical master would say, riaz. One practices endlessly for years, same thing day in and day out, whether it is the sargam or it is baking chapaatis, till one day the note flows effortlessly from the throat, and the chapaati comes off the tava - seemingly of its own - the moment it is cooked just right. Unfortunately, the importance of precision, or riaz, is not taught in the schools and universities of the modern world, except as part of some notion of mathematical or engineering exactitude, necessary to make things fit well, thereby minimising friction. But precision is not just a skill. It is an art, a philosophy, a way of life. It is an essential ingredient of both harmony and happiness.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Ha!
It is a journey: thousands of years; millions; no, billions; infinite. What does it mean- infinite? A word as meaningless as any other. A notion, a concept, a construct. But words are needed, even to describe what cannot be described. What about things that cannot be either described or experienced? Like billions of years-kilometers. What is more accurate- years or kilometers? No one knows, no one can tell. Billions? Another word, without meaning. Endless, without beginning or end, that which can neither be experienced nor described. Does it matter how you describe the indescribable? How you interpret it? How you understand it? Does quantum mechanics make the universe more intelligible? Ha!
Isn’t it Amazing We Survived? Or It’s Not Over Yet
The Europeans had the dream, and they had the determination to achieve it. We had the courage to survive it. Till now that is. The European dream is not over yet. Nor is our resilience nearing exhaustion. Both have a way to go. The dream (or nightmare) plays on.
One could write endless pages on this dream-nightmare/ thrust-parry/ genocide-population overload. Where does one begin? Did the whole thing start with the rise of Judaism? Was Moses the original sin? Or should one blame Jesus and the Christians? We could also blame the Romans, for their hedonistic excesses, which resulted in their downfall at the hands of the barbarians from the north. Maybe the Christians would not have got so firm a hold on Europe had it not been for the backlash against Roman excesses.
Perhaps both the Romans and the Germanic tribes who overthrew the Western Roman Empire are to blame. After all, a direct cause of the cancer of modernity was the feudal-medieval past of Europe. A past born of a curious (to say the least) mix of Roman and Northern barbarities. A past steeped in rigidities, absurdities, heresies, slaveries, persecutions, inquisitions, and witch hunts. A dark and dank past, which was the best, most powerful incentive imaginable for the bloody, though brilliant, slash that followed.
Allowing one’s imagination to fly a little more, maybe we can just about include Islam, the last of the three Abrahamic faiths to emerge from the dry wastes of Palestine-Arabia, in the blame game. It seems reasonable to assume that rising Islam had a most powerful impact on Catholic-Christian Europe. Any takers? Would the European-Christian civilisation like to shove the responsibility of its worst excesses on the pernicious influence of fundamentalist Islam? Aren’t they doing it already with respect to much that they perpetrate today?
But what was the most immediate cause of the madness? I pose this question specifically for the sake of our Cartesian minds, trained to linear fine-ness in casuistry. What if we can’t identify one? Does that mean no one is to blame? Or, that everyone is to blame? Like the Europeans would like to think with respect to global warming? Should the rise of Europe be viewed as part of the larger scheme of things? Not in a religious, theistic sense but in the way Buddha described it: a phenomenon in the realm of dependent co-arising. This is because that is. That is because this is. Europe was because Africa, America, Australia and Asia were? If Buddha was around today he would have probably said, yes to this question. But I am not Buddha. Not yet. So I will continue with my thought stream.
Moving on, I am wonderstruck at several phenomena. I am amazed at the power of the European thrust. It has spread its tentacles into the remotest nook and cranny of the world. No conqueror, no conquest was so comprehensive, so complete, so continuing. What it could not conquer by brute force and unprecedented barbarity it conquered by deceit, duplicity and diplomacy. By fine words and finer sentiments. And it continues to conquer in these manners: simultaneously using murder and conciliation to subdue and subjugate. To serve the purposes of its compulsions, which purposes it itself does not know. Truly, a magnificent achievement by any standards. A benchmark for all future conquests. God (if there is one) forbid that there is another conqueror, or another conquest.
I am also struck by the ongoing nature of this conquest. Starting with physical occupation, displacing and exterminating tens of millions and, subjugating hundreds of millions more, the conquest evolved to what is called indirect rule: perfected by the British in India and applied by Europe worldwide. Thereafter, in a brilliant application of the philosophical implications of indirect rule, the conquest set its colonies free. Of course, before granting freedom, the structure of subjugation – external and internal – was firmly in place. The European world view was the only alternative. Not only were the Europeanised elites of the former colonies thoroughly convinced (with few exceptions) of this fact, the system for perpetuating this world view was also irrevocably entrenched.
That non-Europeanism has survived despite such a systematic onslaught is also a marvel. As is it marvelous that people subjected to intensive genocide, the original inhabitants of the Americas and Australia, have survived. This tells us something about the resilience of life; of human nature. It also tells us that there is a miscalculation in the European game. Busy discovering manifest destiny, and the individual self, the European conquerors forgot that all processes, including the process of conquest, proceed dialectically. As an aside it is important to mention here that dialectics was neither discovered nor invented by the Europeans. Non-European thought has recognised dialectics as an operating principle of the universe for millennia. Buddha’s thesis of dependant co-arising is one expression of it: this is because that is; that is because this is. And the dialectics of conquest dictates that the tables be turned: the conquerors be conquered, the fires be quenched, and the leaves grow again in all their plethoric diversity.
Be that as it may, battered, bruised, truncated, dystopic-ised, the world has survived this conquest till now. The Europeans, however, have one more ace up their sleeve. This is the ace of irreversible destruction of the global habitat, with (European) technology being the only genie capable of saving us, and the world. Given that the realm of world views is firmly under European control, it is likely that this ace will carry the conquest through: till the tables turn, or the world is destroyed, whatever you may wish to call it.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
ON THE IMPORTANCE OF TOURISM OR ABOUT WINNERS AND LOSERS
But loss comes to all. It came to me too. My armour lost its sheen, and loss found me. Half prepared and totally unprepared, I have now lived with loss for several years. It has changed me forever. I have become a loser.
The loss of naiveté is both comforting and disturbing. Being a loser makes one conscious of other losers. Makes one aware that losers are also human beings. I had worked with (and among) losers since my teens but till my armour was intact their lives did not really touch me. I remained an outsider. It is only when fate had decided that it was time to acquaint me with loss that I started getting affected by the people with whom my professional life intersected. At that time I thought this was the effect of a more intensive interaction. The truth was, of course, it was time for me to become a loser.
Materially speaking, and in almost all other senses, I remain a winner. My armour is still intact but it does not serve as a bubble any more. I, therefore, continue to have the luxury of contemplating loss, albeit with a greater familiarity. I wonder about those among us who seem to be permanent losers. How come? What did they do wrong? What makes the Aadivaasis losers? The Dalits, the poor, the Africans, the original inhabitants of the
What does it mean to be a loser? Are members of minorities anywhere/ everywhere losers? What about women? Are women, as a class, losers? More than the enormous extent of violence against them (that exists) it is the ever present possibility of violence that makes me empathise with their plight. What about black people? Browns? Yellows? And Reds? What about the whites?
Of course most white people are losers too: in their own land. But as soon as they step out of their homes into the big wide world (a.k.a. a third world country) they become winners. So, tourism serves not only to edify and titillate and entertain, it also serves to assuage and comfort egos, and sustain the illusion of winning for a whole lot of losers.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
On The (supposed) Distinction Between Modern and Traditional Knowledge
Definitions that seek to distinguish between indigenous/ traditional “knowledge” and modern “knowledge” are all fatally flawed. They are based on an assumption of a difference, which may or may not exist. On the face of it, knowledge is knowledge. All knowledge is the same or no knowledge is knowledge. This seems to me to be a pretty obvious proposition, using common, as well as logical intelligence. Yet scholars (and others) waste an enormous amount of time, and words, to “try” and define the two kinds of “knowledge” in such a manner as to maintain a distinction between the two. Naturally, as modern “knowledge” grows in age and sophistication (and, consequently, its levels of blind arrogance fall), this exercise grows more and more onerous, and tedious, and clumsy. After all, it is impossible for knowledge to match the insouciance of arrogance and ignorance.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Apocalypse Whenever
The mindset of consumption at any cost is a direct result of the way the European mind evolved during its centuries of expansion when a handful (relatively speaking) of people decided that the "world" was their oyster. Since they were so successful in their venture, the rest of the world has now decided that THIS IS THE MINDSET THAT LEADS TO SUCCESS and have adopted it. The Demonstration Effect unleashed by the European success has been reinforced by the fact that collaborator elites that the the European-Colonials established in every place are completely Europeanised in their thinking. The masses of each of these lands would never have taken so fervently to the European ways had it not been for the fact that they are daily witness to the luxury and advantage that these local elites enjoy by virtue of their close (or closer) links with the European mind. Not one local elite anywhere in the world has shown the intelligence or the courage to shrug off their European conditioning and revert to type. I do not minimise the virtual impossibility of doing this in the face of the globalised systems of exploitation and expropriation set up by the Europeans. Nevertheless this is our failure and I wish to own it. Of course the nature of this round of conquest (in the context of several millenia of history of conquests) was/ is such that the possibilities of throwing off the yoke were/ are minimal. The soft colonialism promoted by Europe (values/ ideals), together with the hard (and harsh) physical conquest and control, made sure of this. The fact that this conquest was global, leaving no undefeated ideology to compete with Europe, has also had a vital role in this scenario. I consider the dichotomy between Marxism and Capitalism to be false and the so called dialectic between them for most of the 19th and 20th Centuries to be sham. They were, essentially, the good cop-bad cop of the global domination game, Both chips of the same mindset, whose drama of conflict and opposition to each other enthralled (and continues to enthrall) the whole world while they (together) raped it. Once the conflict was no longer necessary one of the parties to this theatre of the absurd was done away with, unveiling the monopoly in the true colours of its tyranny. It is only proper that yet another sham - that of equality - should become the weapon that will sink the European ship. (At one time I used to have a lot of anger and regret that we non-Europeans should also have to perish in this holocaust but no more. I have seen that there is no other choice.) The shibboleth of equality has its own dynamic, which cannot be wholly controlled. Thus, not only the hyper consumption of the massified elites of Europe but also the increased consumption of the rising elites of the non-European world became inevitable. A linked shibboleth, development, and yet another, progress, have enhanced the power of equality, turning it into an unstoppable tsunami. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. Interestingly, the Europeans (and the Europeanised) continue to consume to death not because they don't know that this is the path to destruction. They do so with full knowledge. But with the conviction that mother earth will save them. Why particularly them, one might ask? The answer is simple. Because they have full faith in her unsentimental ruthlessness. They know that unlike what the Christians and the Muslims would have us believe, mother nature does not care who dun it. She will punish all, indiscriminately. In which case it makes sense to simply ensure one's own survival till the numbers (and this is the final chapter of the definitive book of demographics) are slashed to manageable levels. Once that happens mother nature will lose interest in further vengence and the survivors can pick up the pieces. So, consume, hoard, protect your turf and wait for apocalypse. Indubitably, it is these Europeans and the Europeanised elites of the world who are, seemingly, best positioned to survive the coming flood. They have possession of the high ground and the wherewithal to build and float a million arks. Who cares if the rest of the 9 or 12 billion (or whatever number) drown.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Democracy and Distrust
The more I think about it the more it seems to me that the biggest problem the world faces today is not Bush-America or global capital but the problem of too much expectation. We now have a very large part of the world that expects to have heaven on earth. And it is this section of humanity that is the problem. Ironically, these people think that it is the others – the poor, the backward, those without expectations – who are the problem and, are now engaged in thinking up a final solution to the problem of these “others”.
Let us start with liberty, equality and fraternity, and their concomitant – democracy. I don’t think anyone will deny that these standard bearers of the modern era are the most abused expressions of our age: words that have caused more death and destruction than the most virulent slogans from any previous eras of mayhem and conquest. In my view it is not the lack of these attributes that are the problem but our expectation of them.
Let us start with liberty, equality and fraternity, and their concomitant – democracy. I don’t think anyone will deny that these standard bearers of the modern era are the most abused expressions of our age: words that have caused more death and destruction than the most virulent slogans from any previous eras of mayhem and conquest. In my view it is not the lack of these attributes that are the problem but our expectation of them.
Some Lessons Learnt
Since my early teens I can remember being moved by “injustice” or, what I perceived as unfair. I remember reading about the Vietnam war and being angry with the communists for denying freedom to the Vietnamese people. I remember reading about the freedom struggle and being angry about the fact the “we” were enslaved by the British. I remember feeling personally humiliated by the idea of British colonisation of India. I could go on and on about the things that “moved” me then but let me stop here, and examine the ramifications of these two emotions.
I was born in 1958, so I could not have been more than 10 years old (probably younger) when I read about the Vietnam war. I recall the bombing of Vietnam by American bombers in what I now know was called operation Rolling Thunder. I recall the Tet offensive of January 1968 as part of a continuity of impressions about the war. I recall feeling the warm glow of freedom fought for when I read about American military successes against the North Vietnamese regulars and irregulars during the course of this offensive. I recall feeling sad about the American reverses. However, by the time Nixon negotiated an American troop withdrawal from Vietnam, my perception had undergone a sea change. From saviours to villains, their downfall in my universe was swift.
My anguish at British colonisation of India, while understandable in itself, becomes intriguing when juxtaposed with my pride in American military adventurism. It is not possible to assume that I did not know of the British - European origins of the American state because I did. Christopher Columbus was a household name. Clearly, however, I differentiated between European colonialism and American intervention. Colonialism stood for oppression and enslavement, America stood for freedom, democracy and opportunity. I saw the subjugation of native Americans by the white settlers as an act of civilisational progress (In other words, just) rather than the genocidal savagery that it was. America was my pride and joy. I dreamed of going to America, living there, imbibing its airs, living its dreams.
I have spent the next 35 years unlearning these and other values of my childhood and early youth. Many might call this a terrible waste of time but I consider it time well spent. How can justice be savage? How can democracy enslave? How could I have been blind to so much of the truth about these notions for so long?
I was born in 1958, so I could not have been more than 10 years old (probably younger) when I read about the Vietnam war. I recall the bombing of Vietnam by American bombers in what I now know was called operation Rolling Thunder. I recall the Tet offensive of January 1968 as part of a continuity of impressions about the war. I recall feeling the warm glow of freedom fought for when I read about American military successes against the North Vietnamese regulars and irregulars during the course of this offensive. I recall feeling sad about the American reverses. However, by the time Nixon negotiated an American troop withdrawal from Vietnam, my perception had undergone a sea change. From saviours to villains, their downfall in my universe was swift.
My anguish at British colonisation of India, while understandable in itself, becomes intriguing when juxtaposed with my pride in American military adventurism. It is not possible to assume that I did not know of the British - European origins of the American state because I did. Christopher Columbus was a household name. Clearly, however, I differentiated between European colonialism and American intervention. Colonialism stood for oppression and enslavement, America stood for freedom, democracy and opportunity. I saw the subjugation of native Americans by the white settlers as an act of civilisational progress (In other words, just) rather than the genocidal savagery that it was. America was my pride and joy. I dreamed of going to America, living there, imbibing its airs, living its dreams.
I have spent the next 35 years unlearning these and other values of my childhood and early youth. Many might call this a terrible waste of time but I consider it time well spent. How can justice be savage? How can democracy enslave? How could I have been blind to so much of the truth about these notions for so long?
Monday, January 14, 2008
In Praise of Pessimism
I do not subscribe to the modern obsession with optimism: with being optimistic and, with projecting it. I am, in fact, slightly suspicious of people who project optimism, unless it is naïve; like that of childhood, or of youth. A fifty year old optimist is a perversion of nature or a politician, which amounts to the same thing.
Over the years, I have become used to friends and strangers responding with- why are you such a pessimist? On several occasions, their reactions have been strong enough to throw me into grave self doubt. Am I wrong? Despite the doubt however, I have never wavered from my instinctive feeling that pessimism is, at least, as positive a force in life as optimism. Pessimism is real, it is meaningful and, above all, it is honest. Optimism on the other hand is often chimerical and, is frequently used to subvert individual and social integrity: to sell dreams of an alternate reality to those who are unhappy with their current one and, who know that they have been shorn of all power to alter their situation. It is used to sell war to those who are at peace, to sell brutality to those who would otherwise remain, merely, callous, to sell passive acquiescence to those who would otherwise revolt.
What is wrong with pessimism? When things are bleak is it not better to see them as they are and, to say them as you see them? Pessimism is not loss of hope. They frequently coexist. It is not depression. And, even depression need not necessarily signify loss of hope, at least not a complete loss.
Pessimism is not defeat, or defeatism. Robert Bruce could not have been optimistic of his chances when he waged his final battle against his enemies. In my view, he would never have won that last battle had he not been realistic and, pessimistic.
Pessimism does not mean you stop making an effort. History is replete with examples of people who overcame “insurmountable” odds. What about Helen Keller? What about Gautam Buddha? I don’t think either of them would have been optimistic about their chances when they started on their quest. Let us not forget that Siddharth the prince must have been just like us when he left home: full of confusion, anxiety and despair. He could not have been optimistic about finding answers to his questions. On the contrary, it seems to me that the path to nirvana must have frequently filled him with despair, what to speak of mere pessimism.
Pessimism, in fact, can and often does, lead to great achievement. Those who decry it are probably people of shallow faith. They fail to appreciate the dogged, determined, stubborn quest for survival that actuates life. They refuse to see that pessimism is the missing link that adds to make up the critical minimum mass necessary for the chain reaction to begin.
If you are not on a high then you are low, is the way most people think nowadays. Or, if you are not riding a rainbow then you are depressed. This is one of the reasons for the rampant proliferation of psychiatrists, counselors and anti depressants in the west and nowadays, in India too. All of a sudden we are surrounded by selves unable to cope. Each of us would probably have also felt that way at least once in our lives till now. Why is this? What happened to the much touted ability of homo-sapiens to adapt, change and, cope? Maybe is this is a pointer to the end of the road for “people”. But I think not. It seems to me that the pessimism-optimism binary is contributing to the exponential increase in the psychological fragility of people. Maybe, having survived several millennia of evolution and change without being hooked to this binary, we are finally tired of the effort required to live with without too much chimera for support.
Besides a fundamental rejection, I also object to the optimist-pessimist binary for the ease with which it lends itself as a tool for manipulating people. Some manipulators are "good" and they help those they manipulate with the help of this binary but the overwhelming bulk of the manipulation is bad, very, very bad. We are now well and truly in a cycle of - increasing fragility leading to a bigger handle to the manipulators (the bad ones), leading to increasing fragility ..... This increasing fragility of self suits the people who control the levers of today's world. The more people have to struggle with maintaining an equilibrium of sanity the less likely they are to join in dissent and other "harmful" activities. Have you noticed how society acts on the assumption that it has the right to a greater say in the lives of people who are struggling with their selves? And, most of the time it gets away with this invasion into people's autonomy because the need to be accepted is one of the most overwhelming.
In a culture of “hope”, those who benefit from it frequently sell lies. False hope is worse than no hope. The fallout of failure is much worse when false hope is dashed, as is bound to happen. The world is drowning in the reaction of people whose hopes and expectations have been dashed. Levels of violence, cynicism and despair are at an all time high. Is it not better to take a realistic, hard headed view of things, acknowledge the extreme difficulties of the long and arduous path to be traversed and, ask people to be prepared to forge ahead step by painful step. I think this is the only way that we can rebuild our shattered society into a semblance of wholeness? I am unable to persuade myself that my view of the world (current or future) is negative, though I do have to guard against negativity like anyone else.
We Indians (and other pre-modern people) have a much better alternative to this see-saw. Our culture suggests that we cultivate a state of mind called “sam bhav”. It connotes a neutral state of mind. Neither high nor low. Take things as they come. Don’t expect good fortune, or bad. I should think such a mind is no more difficult to cultivate than any other disciplined mindset. To paraphrase Herman Hesse, we must learn to think, to fast and, to wait.
To conclude, pessimism is not the death that it is usually touted to be. It is not the darkness of abject despair. It is the expectation that there will be light at the end of the tunnel, the hope of which keeps you going long after reason, and optimism, would have made you give up. It is life. Optimism on the other hand is, frequently, manic.
Over the years, I have become used to friends and strangers responding with- why are you such a pessimist? On several occasions, their reactions have been strong enough to throw me into grave self doubt. Am I wrong? Despite the doubt however, I have never wavered from my instinctive feeling that pessimism is, at least, as positive a force in life as optimism. Pessimism is real, it is meaningful and, above all, it is honest. Optimism on the other hand is often chimerical and, is frequently used to subvert individual and social integrity: to sell dreams of an alternate reality to those who are unhappy with their current one and, who know that they have been shorn of all power to alter their situation. It is used to sell war to those who are at peace, to sell brutality to those who would otherwise remain, merely, callous, to sell passive acquiescence to those who would otherwise revolt.
What is wrong with pessimism? When things are bleak is it not better to see them as they are and, to say them as you see them? Pessimism is not loss of hope. They frequently coexist. It is not depression. And, even depression need not necessarily signify loss of hope, at least not a complete loss.
Pessimism is not defeat, or defeatism. Robert Bruce could not have been optimistic of his chances when he waged his final battle against his enemies. In my view, he would never have won that last battle had he not been realistic and, pessimistic.
Pessimism does not mean you stop making an effort. History is replete with examples of people who overcame “insurmountable” odds. What about Helen Keller? What about Gautam Buddha? I don’t think either of them would have been optimistic about their chances when they started on their quest. Let us not forget that Siddharth the prince must have been just like us when he left home: full of confusion, anxiety and despair. He could not have been optimistic about finding answers to his questions. On the contrary, it seems to me that the path to nirvana must have frequently filled him with despair, what to speak of mere pessimism.
Pessimism, in fact, can and often does, lead to great achievement. Those who decry it are probably people of shallow faith. They fail to appreciate the dogged, determined, stubborn quest for survival that actuates life. They refuse to see that pessimism is the missing link that adds to make up the critical minimum mass necessary for the chain reaction to begin.
If you are not on a high then you are low, is the way most people think nowadays. Or, if you are not riding a rainbow then you are depressed. This is one of the reasons for the rampant proliferation of psychiatrists, counselors and anti depressants in the west and nowadays, in India too. All of a sudden we are surrounded by selves unable to cope. Each of us would probably have also felt that way at least once in our lives till now. Why is this? What happened to the much touted ability of homo-sapiens to adapt, change and, cope? Maybe is this is a pointer to the end of the road for “people”. But I think not. It seems to me that the pessimism-optimism binary is contributing to the exponential increase in the psychological fragility of people. Maybe, having survived several millennia of evolution and change without being hooked to this binary, we are finally tired of the effort required to live with without too much chimera for support.
Besides a fundamental rejection, I also object to the optimist-pessimist binary for the ease with which it lends itself as a tool for manipulating people. Some manipulators are "good" and they help those they manipulate with the help of this binary but the overwhelming bulk of the manipulation is bad, very, very bad. We are now well and truly in a cycle of - increasing fragility leading to a bigger handle to the manipulators (the bad ones), leading to increasing fragility ..... This increasing fragility of self suits the people who control the levers of today's world. The more people have to struggle with maintaining an equilibrium of sanity the less likely they are to join in dissent and other "harmful" activities. Have you noticed how society acts on the assumption that it has the right to a greater say in the lives of people who are struggling with their selves? And, most of the time it gets away with this invasion into people's autonomy because the need to be accepted is one of the most overwhelming.
In a culture of “hope”, those who benefit from it frequently sell lies. False hope is worse than no hope. The fallout of failure is much worse when false hope is dashed, as is bound to happen. The world is drowning in the reaction of people whose hopes and expectations have been dashed. Levels of violence, cynicism and despair are at an all time high. Is it not better to take a realistic, hard headed view of things, acknowledge the extreme difficulties of the long and arduous path to be traversed and, ask people to be prepared to forge ahead step by painful step. I think this is the only way that we can rebuild our shattered society into a semblance of wholeness? I am unable to persuade myself that my view of the world (current or future) is negative, though I do have to guard against negativity like anyone else.
We Indians (and other pre-modern people) have a much better alternative to this see-saw. Our culture suggests that we cultivate a state of mind called “sam bhav”. It connotes a neutral state of mind. Neither high nor low. Take things as they come. Don’t expect good fortune, or bad. I should think such a mind is no more difficult to cultivate than any other disciplined mindset. To paraphrase Herman Hesse, we must learn to think, to fast and, to wait.
To conclude, pessimism is not the death that it is usually touted to be. It is not the darkness of abject despair. It is the expectation that there will be light at the end of the tunnel, the hope of which keeps you going long after reason, and optimism, would have made you give up. It is life. Optimism on the other hand is, frequently, manic.
The Middle Class
The mittelstand, or “middle estate” of Germany, which lost its entire savings in the hyperinflation between 1921 and 1924 was instrumental in the rise of Hitler. Having been robbed by democracy, they plumped for fascism.
Here is an example of the true nature of the middle class. Hyper Inflation would not make a nation of farmers, artisans and workers switch from democracy to fascism. They would maintain an ethical (psychological) balance between their material needs and their social and political needs. In other words, mental and psychological instability is an attribute of the middle class. Such people are so attached to their material and creature comforts that they will kill for them and, certainly don’t mind millions getting killed for the sake of them. This is the root of fascism.
Here is an example of the true nature of the middle class. Hyper Inflation would not make a nation of farmers, artisans and workers switch from democracy to fascism. They would maintain an ethical (psychological) balance between their material needs and their social and political needs. In other words, mental and psychological instability is an attribute of the middle class. Such people are so attached to their material and creature comforts that they will kill for them and, certainly don’t mind millions getting killed for the sake of them. This is the root of fascism.
Clairvoyance Machines
What do you mean when you say (to yourself or to another) that you “know”? For example, I know ………..
Think of a thousand examples. Think of a million. In each you will find that the expression “I know” is premised upon an ability to predict the future. This is extraordinary!!!!
It means that we are clairvoyance machines. All life is clairvoyant. Knowledge is clairvoyance. Of course, on average, we are only approximately clairvoyant. Despite knowledge we can not predict with certainty. But we can predict. That is the point. Life is all about predicting the future.
It means that clairvoyants are people whose ability is more developed that the average persons. It validates astrology, palmistry, tarot, tea leaves, crystal balls, magic sticks, face readers and everyone else who claims to predict. It is superfluous to add “the future” because predictions can only be about the future. So, as “knowledge” gets refined it becomes more and more about predicting the future. As “civilizations” decay, this predict-ability becomes more and more about the self. Since, “civilization” is about the self, collective and individual. In other words, the inevitable “end” of all “civilization” is to perfect the art of prediction.
Why is it then that astrology and all the other methods and means used by people to aid their powers of prediction do not give good results? Or, in other words, give such unsatisfactory results. Because, like any other “system” of “thought”, these methods are based upon a simplification of reality; which is both chaotic and complex. The simplification, which modernity generally calls a “theory”, is necessary because the reality is too complex (and chaotic) to be comprehended. In other words, this reality is too complexly chaotic (or chaotically complex) to be comprehended directly. It must be put through a “mill” that grinds (into comprehensible bits), grades (into collections of uniform size) and arranges (into groups of “similar” types) the reality inputs that we receive.
What is the mill? We are the mill? Our whole body is the mill. Every pore of our body, every organ, every sense, is geared to filtering the onslaught of inputs that reality is. Filtering it, grinding, it grading it, arranging it, making “sense” of it. With the object to refining one’s “knowledge” about reality. Why should we want to “know” (or have knowledge about) reality? Because, we need to “predict” reality. Why do we need to predict reality? Because, the ability to predict reality is crucial to our survival. Without such ability our chances of survival are greatly diminished.
Assuming Darwinian natural selection, it is obvious that once it is accepted that the ability to “predict” reality is crucial to survival this ability must increase over time. Those with a greater ability to predict are more likely to survive (and propagate) as compared with those with a lesser ability.
But what is the object of this whole game? I don’t know. Who are the “greatest” humans in any situation? They are the witch doctors, the shamans, the crystal ball readers, the palmists, the astrologers, the clairvoyants. In fact, the clairvoyants are the greatest among these greats because they don’t need any system, any theory, to be able to predict. They have the ability to pluck out the face of the future from the masses of complexly chaotic information that is available to all of us. Why do I say “face”? Because, I don’t think they “see” the future in multiple dimensions. They probably see an image of the future. One can use one of the thousands of descriptions, real and imaginary, that are available, to describe what happens. Both, the real and the imaginary are, probably, equally “true”.
What is true, what is not; what is real and what is not? I think that if we see ourselves as clairvoyance organisms (life forms, creatures, whatever) then these distinctions cease to have the kind of meaning that we are used to giving them. Imagination is as “real” as anything else. Of course, reality exists. But ‘reality’ does not exist as knife sharp distinct from ‘imaginary’. There is a huge area of overlap. Theoretically, one could learn to live in this area, able to partake of both the “worlds”.
Think of a thousand examples. Think of a million. In each you will find that the expression “I know” is premised upon an ability to predict the future. This is extraordinary!!!!
It means that we are clairvoyance machines. All life is clairvoyant. Knowledge is clairvoyance. Of course, on average, we are only approximately clairvoyant. Despite knowledge we can not predict with certainty. But we can predict. That is the point. Life is all about predicting the future.
It means that clairvoyants are people whose ability is more developed that the average persons. It validates astrology, palmistry, tarot, tea leaves, crystal balls, magic sticks, face readers and everyone else who claims to predict. It is superfluous to add “the future” because predictions can only be about the future. So, as “knowledge” gets refined it becomes more and more about predicting the future. As “civilizations” decay, this predict-ability becomes more and more about the self. Since, “civilization” is about the self, collective and individual. In other words, the inevitable “end” of all “civilization” is to perfect the art of prediction.
Why is it then that astrology and all the other methods and means used by people to aid their powers of prediction do not give good results? Or, in other words, give such unsatisfactory results. Because, like any other “system” of “thought”, these methods are based upon a simplification of reality; which is both chaotic and complex. The simplification, which modernity generally calls a “theory”, is necessary because the reality is too complex (and chaotic) to be comprehended. In other words, this reality is too complexly chaotic (or chaotically complex) to be comprehended directly. It must be put through a “mill” that grinds (into comprehensible bits), grades (into collections of uniform size) and arranges (into groups of “similar” types) the reality inputs that we receive.
What is the mill? We are the mill? Our whole body is the mill. Every pore of our body, every organ, every sense, is geared to filtering the onslaught of inputs that reality is. Filtering it, grinding, it grading it, arranging it, making “sense” of it. With the object to refining one’s “knowledge” about reality. Why should we want to “know” (or have knowledge about) reality? Because, we need to “predict” reality. Why do we need to predict reality? Because, the ability to predict reality is crucial to our survival. Without such ability our chances of survival are greatly diminished.
Assuming Darwinian natural selection, it is obvious that once it is accepted that the ability to “predict” reality is crucial to survival this ability must increase over time. Those with a greater ability to predict are more likely to survive (and propagate) as compared with those with a lesser ability.
But what is the object of this whole game? I don’t know. Who are the “greatest” humans in any situation? They are the witch doctors, the shamans, the crystal ball readers, the palmists, the astrologers, the clairvoyants. In fact, the clairvoyants are the greatest among these greats because they don’t need any system, any theory, to be able to predict. They have the ability to pluck out the face of the future from the masses of complexly chaotic information that is available to all of us. Why do I say “face”? Because, I don’t think they “see” the future in multiple dimensions. They probably see an image of the future. One can use one of the thousands of descriptions, real and imaginary, that are available, to describe what happens. Both, the real and the imaginary are, probably, equally “true”.
What is true, what is not; what is real and what is not? I think that if we see ourselves as clairvoyance organisms (life forms, creatures, whatever) then these distinctions cease to have the kind of meaning that we are used to giving them. Imagination is as “real” as anything else. Of course, reality exists. But ‘reality’ does not exist as knife sharp distinct from ‘imaginary’. There is a huge area of overlap. Theoretically, one could learn to live in this area, able to partake of both the “worlds”.
Everything is Linked
Everything is linked. The thing is to find the link. In fact, everything is linked in more ways than we can see (or imagine). The foot is linked to the head and we can see it but an ant may doubt it, debate it, philosophise over it, agonise and struggle over it because she/ he cannot 'see' it.
Thus, it is possible to assert that things may be connected even when we do not see the connection. Or, we may know the connection and therefore assume it exists. For example, when we see a foot moving we will assume that it is connected to a head (because this is generally the case), even though we do not see the head. That it may actually not be connected to a head is another matter.
Going a step further, if things may be connected even when we do not see their connection, it is also possible that things we see as being connected, like the head to the foot, may be connected to each other in ways that we do not (or cannot) see, apart from the connection that we can see. In other words, the foot and the head may be connected in more than just the "normal" way via the neck, torso and the legs. What if there is a direct connection between the head and the foot? A short cut. To suggest such a thing is to invite a pooh pooh from the reader since it is clear to the meanest intelligence that there is nothing shorter that a straight line between two points and, the connection between the head and the foot (via the neck, torso and legs) is almost a straight line.
But what would be true in three dimensional space may not be true in four dimensional or multi dimensional space. There may be a more direct, shorter connection between the head and the foot, than via neck, torso, limb. What if the connection was a wireless blue-tooth, or whatever?
Thus, it is possible to assert that things may be connected even when we do not see the connection. Or, we may know the connection and therefore assume it exists. For example, when we see a foot moving we will assume that it is connected to a head (because this is generally the case), even though we do not see the head. That it may actually not be connected to a head is another matter.
Going a step further, if things may be connected even when we do not see their connection, it is also possible that things we see as being connected, like the head to the foot, may be connected to each other in ways that we do not (or cannot) see, apart from the connection that we can see. In other words, the foot and the head may be connected in more than just the "normal" way via the neck, torso and the legs. What if there is a direct connection between the head and the foot? A short cut. To suggest such a thing is to invite a pooh pooh from the reader since it is clear to the meanest intelligence that there is nothing shorter that a straight line between two points and, the connection between the head and the foot (via the neck, torso and legs) is almost a straight line.
But what would be true in three dimensional space may not be true in four dimensional or multi dimensional space. There may be a more direct, shorter connection between the head and the foot, than via neck, torso, limb. What if the connection was a wireless blue-tooth, or whatever?
Monday, August 06, 2007
Savagery
Savagery is as much part of human nature as mother love. No amount of rationalisation, pontification or persuasion will change this fact. A thousand Buddhas cannot prevent it. Why then does law think it can control it or, even stop it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)