Looking at myself is difficult but I will do it. Everything is looming large at the moment. It is as if I have shrunk and/ or the world around me has grown. A bit like Alice. Was Carroll also hinting at this aspect of the self when he wrote Alice? Or, Defoe when he wrote Gulliver’s Travels?
My life seems to have fallen into a serious mess. I could say, ‘things have fallen apart’. This leads to an interesting insight into the importance of “success”. It is only when one fails (or is a failure) that one’s failings are exposed. If one succeeds then, notwithstanding the existence of the very same failings, no one pays any attention to them. This is probably the main reason for coining the saying “nothing succeeds like success”.
Success is like the light of the sun. It blinds, it dazzles, it conceals more than it reveals, it cloaks the reality of the universe that we live in (the universe within). Failure on the other hand, like darkness at night (or, even, the light of the moon), reveals all. The truth of our existence cannot be escaped in the cold light of the stars.
Success is power. Power allows people to ride their faults. The absence of it turns the same faults into to millstones round their necks. The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner is about power and the loss of it. About actions that seem justified when carried out (whether out of a sense of arrogance or out of ignorance) and, the agonies that we undergo thereafter. It is about the foolish arrogance that scorns its lodestar, destroying the very thing that guides and sustains it.
Showing posts with label Musings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Musings. Show all posts
Friday, June 29, 2007
PARANOIA
Sometimes I am in a state of flux, with insights happening all the time. Almost anything- a glass of water, the sight of a tree, a few words on a page – are enough to trigger off an insight. It is as if light bulbs are going on all the time, illuminating something afresh or casting something familiar in a new light. To some extent the insights do help in improving perspective also but the larger picture is still not seen.
The question arises, how large is the picture. What if the picture keeps getting larger and larger without end?
Why do I ask this question? Is it a problem if this happens?
The answer is yes. The reason is that I want to acquire the larger picture for a collateral purpose and, not for its own sake. And, I can’t go on waiting for the picture expansion to end because I want to be able to announce that I have seen the whole picture. In this sense, no one has seen the picture, perhaps, because it is a picture without end.
Today, I felt a bulb lighting up while reading The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: the world is a construct. We talk about various aspects of this construct quite frequently but without understanding its implications fully. For example, the ‘construct’ of manhood or, of feminity. What do we mean when we call them ‘constructs’? Does it mean there is no such thing as manhood or feminity, except in our minds; except in the minds of the human race.
Does it mean that manhood is a notion in our heads? It was not born there and, nor did it enter full grown. Its entry was an osmotic process that happened over time and, which is still happening. Its entry is proof of the existence of a dimension in space-time where we are all linked. Like the world wide web, which comes into existence by the linking of thousands of computers all over the world. One could perhaps call the space where these ‘constructs’ live and travel the life space. Is it the same as what people call the spirit world? Or, some variation of it: like the magic-realities that are so popular today. If yes, then the implications for “modern” realists are quite drastic. Mythology may turn out to be more real than history!
Theoretically, we can kill this dimension in the same way as computer cyber space; by destroying the linkage between people. But how does go about destroying something that has no wires, no power source, no ‘waves’ by which it communicates? Something that can be transmitted by a sidelong glance, a look in the eye, a grunt or, even, silence. Something that need not be transmitted in toto or full grown but is yet shared in complex detail. Which is not static but lives and grows, and evolves. Is there a switch inside us that we can turn? A plug that we can pull, isolating us from the rest?
If ‘manhood’ is a construct then so is everything else that together makes up what we call the “world”. If this is so, then who are we? Human beings? What is a human being? She/ he are just a construct. Layer upon layer of it. For, the process commences virtually the moment we are conceived and continues till we die. The construct appropriate for an embryo is different from that for an infant, for a child, for an adolescent, for and adult. At each stage of the life of a human being, layers of “reality” gets applied in the shape of sets of constructs; over which fresh layers gets applied in the next stage.
What happens when we strip off a layer or two of the construct? Do we remain human? Is there a way to deconstruct human beings? Are psychiatrists, psychologists and psychoanalysts on the right track? We all know that people deconstruct. Personalities break down. The layers, which are connected with each other in a complex hierarchy of connections, get short circuited. New dimensions to self emerge as a result. Many, if not most, of them are called “mad”.
What if madness is just a different layering (manner of layering) of constructs? What if schizophrenia is just one such manner? Or, paranoia?
The question arises, how large is the picture. What if the picture keeps getting larger and larger without end?
Why do I ask this question? Is it a problem if this happens?
The answer is yes. The reason is that I want to acquire the larger picture for a collateral purpose and, not for its own sake. And, I can’t go on waiting for the picture expansion to end because I want to be able to announce that I have seen the whole picture. In this sense, no one has seen the picture, perhaps, because it is a picture without end.
Today, I felt a bulb lighting up while reading The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: the world is a construct. We talk about various aspects of this construct quite frequently but without understanding its implications fully. For example, the ‘construct’ of manhood or, of feminity. What do we mean when we call them ‘constructs’? Does it mean there is no such thing as manhood or feminity, except in our minds; except in the minds of the human race.
Does it mean that manhood is a notion in our heads? It was not born there and, nor did it enter full grown. Its entry was an osmotic process that happened over time and, which is still happening. Its entry is proof of the existence of a dimension in space-time where we are all linked. Like the world wide web, which comes into existence by the linking of thousands of computers all over the world. One could perhaps call the space where these ‘constructs’ live and travel the life space. Is it the same as what people call the spirit world? Or, some variation of it: like the magic-realities that are so popular today. If yes, then the implications for “modern” realists are quite drastic. Mythology may turn out to be more real than history!
Theoretically, we can kill this dimension in the same way as computer cyber space; by destroying the linkage between people. But how does go about destroying something that has no wires, no power source, no ‘waves’ by which it communicates? Something that can be transmitted by a sidelong glance, a look in the eye, a grunt or, even, silence. Something that need not be transmitted in toto or full grown but is yet shared in complex detail. Which is not static but lives and grows, and evolves. Is there a switch inside us that we can turn? A plug that we can pull, isolating us from the rest?
If ‘manhood’ is a construct then so is everything else that together makes up what we call the “world”. If this is so, then who are we? Human beings? What is a human being? She/ he are just a construct. Layer upon layer of it. For, the process commences virtually the moment we are conceived and continues till we die. The construct appropriate for an embryo is different from that for an infant, for a child, for an adolescent, for and adult. At each stage of the life of a human being, layers of “reality” gets applied in the shape of sets of constructs; over which fresh layers gets applied in the next stage.
What happens when we strip off a layer or two of the construct? Do we remain human? Is there a way to deconstruct human beings? Are psychiatrists, psychologists and psychoanalysts on the right track? We all know that people deconstruct. Personalities break down. The layers, which are connected with each other in a complex hierarchy of connections, get short circuited. New dimensions to self emerge as a result. Many, if not most, of them are called “mad”.
What if madness is just a different layering (manner of layering) of constructs? What if schizophrenia is just one such manner? Or, paranoia?
Monday, April 30, 2007
Entropy
The second law of thermodynamics, says that in the material world energy of all kinds disperses or dissipates from higher concentrations to lower ones, if it is not hindered from doing so. The dispersal occurs at a predictable rate. The measurement of this rate of dispersal is called entropy.
The implications of this law are profound. It encompasses both life and death. On the one hand, life as we know it would not be possible without a stable and predictable rate of dispersal of energy from higher to lower concentrations. On the other, the inevitability of such a flow makes it certain that the world as we know it will one day come to an end. To give an example, the sun, the most concentrated form of energy in our solar system will continue to radiate its energy to lower concentrations at a steady rate till its concentration is "equalised".[1] The steady dispersal of the sun's energy gives rise to life on earth. The fact that this dispersal will cease once the concentrations are equalised means that life sustained by this dispersal must end some day.
To the scientist, entropy is a means for measuring this law and, consequently, for describing the processes that sustain life. To a lay person like me entropy can also be viewed as the rate at which order turns to chaos, assuming that "life" is order and "death" (or, the end of life) is chaos. In other words, entropy is chaos. Or, entropy is the potential for chaos that inherent in all "order".
In a paper titled Entropy Is Simple -- If We Avoid The Briar Patches!, Professor Frank L. Lambert, Professor Emeritus (Chemistry) Occidental College, Los Angeles has severely criticised all those who use entropy in the manner described above. He complains bitterly about the simplistic and inaccurate use of both, the second law and of the concept of entropy to create what he calls falsehoods about entropy as "disorder" or, as a measure of chaos. He gives myriad examples from everyday life, illustrating chemical (or thermodynamic) entropy, to justify his critique of philosophical entropy. To quote " entropy change has to do with energy spreading out, not with pretty patterns." This sentence encapsulates the professor's scorn for the non-scientific use of the term: to describe a descent from "order" to "disorder".
While the professor is quite right to distinguish between scientific entropy as a measure of the rate at which heat is dispersed in a given process (or, thermo-dynamics) and, entropy as weltanschauung, his refusal to recognise the philosophical implications of the second law is in keeping with the short sightedness of modern science (and scientists). In fact, the professor's approach is perfectly consistent with why the world is in the parlous state that it is in; with the worst aspect being the outright refusal of those who run the world to recognise the existence of philosophical entropy or, its implications for their actions.
[1] Though not used in the strict scientific sense, the expression is nevertheless accurate since it is predicated that as the sun cools its matter will spread (the sun will expand), thereby heating up the solar system till the entire solar system is encompassed within the sun's ambit, resulting in an equalisation of temperatures.
The implications of this law are profound. It encompasses both life and death. On the one hand, life as we know it would not be possible without a stable and predictable rate of dispersal of energy from higher to lower concentrations. On the other, the inevitability of such a flow makes it certain that the world as we know it will one day come to an end. To give an example, the sun, the most concentrated form of energy in our solar system will continue to radiate its energy to lower concentrations at a steady rate till its concentration is "equalised".[1] The steady dispersal of the sun's energy gives rise to life on earth. The fact that this dispersal will cease once the concentrations are equalised means that life sustained by this dispersal must end some day.
To the scientist, entropy is a means for measuring this law and, consequently, for describing the processes that sustain life. To a lay person like me entropy can also be viewed as the rate at which order turns to chaos, assuming that "life" is order and "death" (or, the end of life) is chaos. In other words, entropy is chaos. Or, entropy is the potential for chaos that inherent in all "order".
In a paper titled Entropy Is Simple -- If We Avoid The Briar Patches!, Professor Frank L. Lambert, Professor Emeritus (Chemistry) Occidental College, Los Angeles has severely criticised all those who use entropy in the manner described above. He complains bitterly about the simplistic and inaccurate use of both, the second law and of the concept of entropy to create what he calls falsehoods about entropy as "disorder" or, as a measure of chaos. He gives myriad examples from everyday life, illustrating chemical (or thermodynamic) entropy, to justify his critique of philosophical entropy. To quote " entropy change has to do with energy spreading out, not with pretty patterns." This sentence encapsulates the professor's scorn for the non-scientific use of the term: to describe a descent from "order" to "disorder".
While the professor is quite right to distinguish between scientific entropy as a measure of the rate at which heat is dispersed in a given process (or, thermo-dynamics) and, entropy as weltanschauung, his refusal to recognise the philosophical implications of the second law is in keeping with the short sightedness of modern science (and scientists). In fact, the professor's approach is perfectly consistent with why the world is in the parlous state that it is in; with the worst aspect being the outright refusal of those who run the world to recognise the existence of philosophical entropy or, its implications for their actions.
[1] Though not used in the strict scientific sense, the expression is nevertheless accurate since it is predicated that as the sun cools its matter will spread (the sun will expand), thereby heating up the solar system till the entire solar system is encompassed within the sun's ambit, resulting in an equalisation of temperatures.
Post Bourgeois Dreams
Axiomatically, illusions are elusive. Then why should it come as a surprise that peace between India and Pakistan is elusive. Underlying this elusive quest for peace are other illusions. For example, that we are a democracy.
Peace is a human desire. Its wish cannot, ipso facto, be attributed to a State. Therefore, a State's desire (or lack of it) for peace is a function of the desires of its people, or, at least, the people who run it. It is axiomatic that a country where the people desire peace while the State wages war, is not a democracy. In such a State peace is bound to elude since, while the desire for peace is rooted in the people, the processes of peace are in the hands of the State, which is not in the hands of the people. In a State where democracy is an illusion, peace is frequently an instrument of State policy. To paraphrase Clauswitz, in such States— peace is the continuation of war by other means.
Thus, assuming that Indians desire peace, its elusiveness can be said to be a function of the illusion of democracy that belabours us. But what if the assumption is not true. And, if it is not true, why is it not true, given that the only reasonable desire is (or can be) for peace. War is insanity except in the rarest of rare circumstances where its sole alternative is not peace but a pervasive injustice, more corroding and destructive than war. Yet, we have all heard many Indians rooting for an all out war with Pakistan. We are also witness to significant expressions of “public” support for a hard line on contentious issues between the two countries. It is easy to dismiss these as being manipulated. True as this fact may be, that is not all there is to the support for the State’s militant designs.
It is a fact that there is very little support in India for most ‘progressive, liberal, humanist, etc’ issues. While you can get millions out on the streets on the Ram Mandir you will not get even a thousand out against the devastation of the environment or against an endemic culture of custodial torture and killing. Thousands of brides (daughters) are killed every year by their husbands and in laws. Yet the issue does not grip the nation’s fathers, many of whom have daughters of their own. A ‘why’ to these and other phenomena has almost as many answers as ‘answerers’. Here is one.
Peace is a post-bourgeois dream. Trapped within our bourgeois angsts, we dream of peace even as our hands are busy grabbing as much as possible of the pie, nervous in our crumbling edifices of security, like the tin sheds that slum dwellers call home. Every “other” is a rival to our quest, our five century old history proof of its destructive power.
Peace is a human desire. Its wish cannot, ipso facto, be attributed to a State. Therefore, a State's desire (or lack of it) for peace is a function of the desires of its people, or, at least, the people who run it. It is axiomatic that a country where the people desire peace while the State wages war, is not a democracy. In such a State peace is bound to elude since, while the desire for peace is rooted in the people, the processes of peace are in the hands of the State, which is not in the hands of the people. In a State where democracy is an illusion, peace is frequently an instrument of State policy. To paraphrase Clauswitz, in such States— peace is the continuation of war by other means.
Thus, assuming that Indians desire peace, its elusiveness can be said to be a function of the illusion of democracy that belabours us. But what if the assumption is not true. And, if it is not true, why is it not true, given that the only reasonable desire is (or can be) for peace. War is insanity except in the rarest of rare circumstances where its sole alternative is not peace but a pervasive injustice, more corroding and destructive than war. Yet, we have all heard many Indians rooting for an all out war with Pakistan. We are also witness to significant expressions of “public” support for a hard line on contentious issues between the two countries. It is easy to dismiss these as being manipulated. True as this fact may be, that is not all there is to the support for the State’s militant designs.
It is a fact that there is very little support in India for most ‘progressive, liberal, humanist, etc’ issues. While you can get millions out on the streets on the Ram Mandir you will not get even a thousand out against the devastation of the environment or against an endemic culture of custodial torture and killing. Thousands of brides (daughters) are killed every year by their husbands and in laws. Yet the issue does not grip the nation’s fathers, many of whom have daughters of their own. A ‘why’ to these and other phenomena has almost as many answers as ‘answerers’. Here is one.
Peace is a post-bourgeois dream. Trapped within our bourgeois angsts, we dream of peace even as our hands are busy grabbing as much as possible of the pie, nervous in our crumbling edifices of security, like the tin sheds that slum dwellers call home. Every “other” is a rival to our quest, our five century old history proof of its destructive power.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Is it enough that the Prime Minister is honest?
How dire is the Indian situation? I find it difficult to gauge the truth.
On the one hand we have the "numbers" coming out every day. Infosys, Wipro, Reliance Energy, Biocon, ....... On the other, the Prime Minister announces "packages" for suicide riven Vidarbha. Where lies the truth? Is India making rapid progress towards the economic well being of its billion plus or is it down-sliding into desperate poverty?
Look at it another way: On the one hand, the ruling establishment, which, by the way, includes us, flaunts its billion plus demography as THE ASSEST of the nation; one that has catapulted us into the ranks of the great nations of the world and, virtually, into the UN Security Council. On the other, we allow the very people who make us such a great nation to die unnecessary deaths by the millions every year: female foeticide and infanticide, high infant mortality in general, high maternal mortality, starvation deaths, disease epidemics, one of the highest accident rates in the world, et al.
Do we imagine that it is only the Lakshmi Mittals and the Amartaya Sens and the Indira Nooyis that enable us to hold our heads high when we says we are Indians? No doubt they and many other "successful" Indians have helped erase the ubiquitous image of the naked, starving Indian: going around the world with a begging bowl. Perhaps that is all that we care about; how the world paints us. After all, it is only Maya.
Do we imagine that we will actually become a great nation on the strength of the handful of corporate czars, Nobel laureates, missiles and, atomic weapons? Are we labouring under the illusion that China is on the verge of becoming a great and powerful nation, whose voice is impossible to ignore because of its nuclear arsenal? Its unprecedented economic boom? A "booming economy" is only so much hot air unless it translates into a modicum of dignity for all: food in every thaali, a shirt on every back, a roof over every head.
How dire is the Indian situation? I find it difficult to gauge the truth.
On the one hand we have the "numbers" coming out every day. Infosys, Wipro, Reliance Energy, Biocon, ....... On the other, the Prime Minister announces "packages" for suicide riven Vidarbha. Where lies the truth? Is India making rapid progress towards the economic well being of its billion plus or is it down-sliding into desperate poverty?
Look at it another way: On the one hand, the ruling establishment, which, by the way, includes us, flaunts its billion plus demography as THE ASSEST of the nation; one that has catapulted us into the ranks of the great nations of the world and, virtually, into the UN Security Council. On the other, we allow the very people who make us such a great nation to die unnecessary deaths by the millions every year: female foeticide and infanticide, high infant mortality in general, high maternal mortality, starvation deaths, disease epidemics, one of the highest accident rates in the world, et al.
Do we imagine that it is only the Lakshmi Mittals and the Amartaya Sens and the Indira Nooyis that enable us to hold our heads high when we says we are Indians? No doubt they and many other "successful" Indians have helped erase the ubiquitous image of the naked, starving Indian: going around the world with a begging bowl. Perhaps that is all that we care about; how the world paints us. After all, it is only Maya.
Do we imagine that we will actually become a great nation on the strength of the handful of corporate czars, Nobel laureates, missiles and, atomic weapons? Are we labouring under the illusion that China is on the verge of becoming a great and powerful nation, whose voice is impossible to ignore because of its nuclear arsenal? Its unprecedented economic boom? A "booming economy" is only so much hot air unless it translates into a modicum of dignity for all: food in every thaali, a shirt on every back, a roof over every head.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)