Past is difficult thing to leave. It becomes even more difficult if past that you are trying to forget was what your identity for all years passed. The memories you are trying to erase are what your habits and words for all time passed. It is difficult burden to throw away and more difficult if you know what you are throwing away is still dearer to you.
I never made peace with the fact that I worked for RSS. What kept me there are persons who designed the organizations, curtailed and fitted themselves to any task and impulsive responses whenever any social catastrophe happened. What made me to withdraw myself is restricted view towards human being. Sketching human being as religious entity, putting unnecessary benevolence or cruelty on him or holding concepts about humanity much more worth than humanity which created them are not my cup of teas. But even though I fragmented in my attachments, what never changed is my respect and attraction for creative organization of human beings and ever-present spirit of soiling the clothes. Its been three years I am away from what I have been my all for years before. There is no new recognition I found for myself. I am never able to leave earlier one.
First thing I read in the day was my friend’s blog.
( Read it at: http://vikramwalawalkar.blogspot.com/2010/01/blog-post.html)
He had participated in fire fighting act. He is a staunch believer and practitioner of Hindutva. He has wrote his experiences and feelings lucidly and at the same time there is no personal credit involved.. There are many arguments I had with him about philosophy of work. In my frustrated actionless days, I even criticized him just for the sake of it. Yet, after reading him, I find him my close one. I salute what he did. I wish I should be able to do the same if time calls. It made me to look back about what I had been. It evoked passion for impulsive actions towards any social pain. It teased sort of thought battles I fought theses days. It underlined the fact that what matters is difference made. Whether it is thought driven or impulse driven is not what makes difference. It is old friction. Day started, with lost, partial past and undefined and gray future. I am standing on collapsing present it seems.
What if I just jump in sea of people? What if I left all my identities back and submerge in this pool of unknown? Will I survive? Will ‘they’ let me live? Will not they rob me? Even when I say I want to study people, I keep my securities alive, though distant. Can I really be a part of them? I can really feel what they feel?
Yesterday, an unknown but helpful stranger strongly expressed his sympathies for naxalites. Today, my friend again stressed how RSS making difference. Will I be ever able to take stand so clearly?
Whirlpool of questions muddles every moment. This chaos about self becomes even complex when I feel that it is not just I but some other who are woven in it. Directly or indirectly, my actions or inaction are not just mine.
Where it leads? I strongly feel questions lead to questions. Answers exist independently.
In the evening, I was sitting in autorikshaw. I mostly get frustrated by crowd and by competition one has to participate in to get access to any resource in such crowd. With some efforts, I had controlled this frustration. Rickshaw started. And, it stopped soon. there is potential stalemate. Some rickshaws, each one going in mutually different directions had reached to common point. And rickshaw in which I was sitting was first in the queue of auto following it. I stepped down. Asked following rickshaw to move back. Then, I made request to one another rickshaw driver to adjust itself. It started moving in few minutes. Nothing great. But, what made me smile back to myself, is my natural response. Even today, I have it alive. Even today, my eyes get wet for people distant from my eyes. Even today, what I see worth is fighting spirit of any person. Even now, with all thoughts inclining to self-destruction, I see bleak but sustained hope that I can make small but constant difference. I feel I am alive, though puzzled, fed on artificial though diet and deprived of constancy.
Baba Amte said:
झोपलेत माळ अजून तापवीत काया
असंख्य या नद्या अजून वाहतात वाया
अजून हे अपर दुख वाट पाहत आहे
अजून हा प्रचंड देश भीक मागताहे
I am not sure whether this sorrow is infinite. I do not know what poet means by country. What I am sure of is repercussions these words made inside me. And, if they are real, real are my feelings, real are impulses I feel for actions and real is satisfaction that any selfless act brings.
Sometimes there is good way to answer chronic troubling questions. Forget them!
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
End and Means
I have written before about being selfish. There is visual interpretation of words which we use. What comes to my mind when I say ‘selfish’ is someone chasing wealth? It is not image, I agree. But, what comes to my mind is person with measured, tailor made talks, behavior in which there is no contradiction and chase of opulence or some sort of gain evident in every action. There is nothing done without visible intention of gaining something out of it and rarely that gain is non-materialistic.
There may be different, polar opposite visuals coming to mind of different persons. There is connotation every word carries. This connotation is made up some average meaning which is present in everybody’s mind, with few exceptions. The connotation for ‘selfish’ is tilted to negative, towards region of characteristics which we do not want to see or we are taught not to see in ‘ideal’ human being. If this ideal human picture is removed, selfishness is what will remain, in different orders. It is not greed or lust for wealth or material comforts that is included in ‘selfish’. It is about motive of every action, be it affecting decision maker directly or indirectly. If we search till the possible roots of our decision making, there remain two motives for our decisions: 1. Survival 2. Pleasure. Pleasure can be termed as satisfaction or fulfillment or anything. But, more or less, it is pleasure. One must be conscious in interpreting this pleasure. I am talking here about all sorts of pleasures, except ‘pleasure of survival’. I take survival essential for pleasure. It can be altruism, patriotic killing, martyrdom, aversion of sorrow or pleasure in avoiding materialistic fulfillment. This might seem intellectual trick, but I think this similarity is what at root. We do anything either for survival and once survival is assured, pleasure is the motive that drives our actions. It makes all of us ‘selfish’. The property of our feelings is that one can feel only one’s own feelings. So every pleasure is for the one who is going to feel it. And, then we are selfish, each and every moment.
This is much on higher ground I talked. What made me to think about this is envy I feel when I watch riches. I tried providing justification to this envy by my initial conditions. But, once I am aware of my certain feelings, I realize that those are not fundamental feelings and I can alter them. Then I tried to see this envy on altruistic grounds. But, it faded soon. Then, I thought that it is what I want to be and I am not able to be. Once I reached this, I was at ease with them. Then, I examined what is really making me envious. It was not their consumptions of luxuries that made me envious. It is exertion of freedom or more precisely, of free will that was making me envious. Whatever way one can criticize wealth; prove it evil, nobody can deny that it makes one able to exercise one’s free will. It might be the case that mostly this free will is used for situations which will yield short term pleasures. But, there is no pint in denying that one can choose pleasures which are more than temporary fulfillment of senses or even seek for intense fulfillment.
Now, arriving at this virtue of wealth, I remember some conversations in past. I owe much to conversations, by the way. Most of my thinking happens as conversation or argument with either myself or somebody else. So, when I used to be involved in some ‘social’ movement, many well-wishers often used to advice me that I should first secure resources for myself and then I should exercise them willingly in whatever way I want. Are they wrong? Are they wrong in some of their premises? I see there is sense in their arguments. But, it is not assets that I am willing to have. It is channels through which I can exercise my free will. It is position which will keep me enough untied, unconstrained and flexible to make use of free will.
Pursuit of wealth is not evil. This is only thing that a free person does. What is evil or sub standard id definition of wealth that one makes for oneself. Many of us end up defining it in terms of visual assets or luxuries. But, I can define it in my positions and abilities to exercise free will, which is end of being wealthy. Marathi saint Tukaram once said:
जोडोनिया धन उत्तम व्यवहारे
उदास विचारे वेच करी
These lines mean wealth should be accumulated with good means. And, it should be spent with disinterest. That actually means what I want to say. It is end of wealth that one should look for, not the mean of wealth accumulation.
Ends and means are not invariably separated as they seem. Use of means has some end every time use is made. They are woven in each other. One who is in process should keep this awareness to see what one is seeing.
All these subtleties and webs of thoughts are instruments I have to see and define this game as clearer as I can. This process of making it clearer, more meaningful and yet remembering that it is going to be incomplete is wonderful. As one poet said,
मी म्हणोनी सोडीला नाद हा मंझीलाचा
चालण्याचे ध्येय आहे अन्य धर्माचार नाही
where I am walking is not of any importance. What I aim is to keep walking on this way, to keep walking on this way.
There may be different, polar opposite visuals coming to mind of different persons. There is connotation every word carries. This connotation is made up some average meaning which is present in everybody’s mind, with few exceptions. The connotation for ‘selfish’ is tilted to negative, towards region of characteristics which we do not want to see or we are taught not to see in ‘ideal’ human being. If this ideal human picture is removed, selfishness is what will remain, in different orders. It is not greed or lust for wealth or material comforts that is included in ‘selfish’. It is about motive of every action, be it affecting decision maker directly or indirectly. If we search till the possible roots of our decision making, there remain two motives for our decisions: 1. Survival 2. Pleasure. Pleasure can be termed as satisfaction or fulfillment or anything. But, more or less, it is pleasure. One must be conscious in interpreting this pleasure. I am talking here about all sorts of pleasures, except ‘pleasure of survival’. I take survival essential for pleasure. It can be altruism, patriotic killing, martyrdom, aversion of sorrow or pleasure in avoiding materialistic fulfillment. This might seem intellectual trick, but I think this similarity is what at root. We do anything either for survival and once survival is assured, pleasure is the motive that drives our actions. It makes all of us ‘selfish’. The property of our feelings is that one can feel only one’s own feelings. So every pleasure is for the one who is going to feel it. And, then we are selfish, each and every moment.
This is much on higher ground I talked. What made me to think about this is envy I feel when I watch riches. I tried providing justification to this envy by my initial conditions. But, once I am aware of my certain feelings, I realize that those are not fundamental feelings and I can alter them. Then I tried to see this envy on altruistic grounds. But, it faded soon. Then, I thought that it is what I want to be and I am not able to be. Once I reached this, I was at ease with them. Then, I examined what is really making me envious. It was not their consumptions of luxuries that made me envious. It is exertion of freedom or more precisely, of free will that was making me envious. Whatever way one can criticize wealth; prove it evil, nobody can deny that it makes one able to exercise one’s free will. It might be the case that mostly this free will is used for situations which will yield short term pleasures. But, there is no pint in denying that one can choose pleasures which are more than temporary fulfillment of senses or even seek for intense fulfillment.
Now, arriving at this virtue of wealth, I remember some conversations in past. I owe much to conversations, by the way. Most of my thinking happens as conversation or argument with either myself or somebody else. So, when I used to be involved in some ‘social’ movement, many well-wishers often used to advice me that I should first secure resources for myself and then I should exercise them willingly in whatever way I want. Are they wrong? Are they wrong in some of their premises? I see there is sense in their arguments. But, it is not assets that I am willing to have. It is channels through which I can exercise my free will. It is position which will keep me enough untied, unconstrained and flexible to make use of free will.
Pursuit of wealth is not evil. This is only thing that a free person does. What is evil or sub standard id definition of wealth that one makes for oneself. Many of us end up defining it in terms of visual assets or luxuries. But, I can define it in my positions and abilities to exercise free will, which is end of being wealthy. Marathi saint Tukaram once said:
जोडोनिया धन उत्तम व्यवहारे
उदास विचारे वेच करी
These lines mean wealth should be accumulated with good means. And, it should be spent with disinterest. That actually means what I want to say. It is end of wealth that one should look for, not the mean of wealth accumulation.
Ends and means are not invariably separated as they seem. Use of means has some end every time use is made. They are woven in each other. One who is in process should keep this awareness to see what one is seeing.
All these subtleties and webs of thoughts are instruments I have to see and define this game as clearer as I can. This process of making it clearer, more meaningful and yet remembering that it is going to be incomplete is wonderful. As one poet said,
मी म्हणोनी सोडीला नाद हा मंझीलाचा
चालण्याचे ध्येय आहे अन्य धर्माचार नाही
where I am walking is not of any importance. What I aim is to keep walking on this way, to keep walking on this way.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Incompleteness
Leading life logically is what philosopher tried to do for many years. It doesn’t mean they actually lived so. But, somehow, through all their works, they tried to establish some or other cage of thoughts and presented life as some wild but tamed animal inside. How that animal got inside the cage was what not they tried to explain. They elegantly, skillfully and precisely described what to do it once it is caged. But, somehow what matters to most of the living mortals, like me, is how to cage it or whether is it possible at all to cage it. They keep mum, a sacrosanct silence.
What is problem in perceiving life system with some tailor made premises? And, if one does not do so, then what is the way to explain social organization? What do we mean by ‘explain’? ‘Explanation’ is bringing something unknown into known. We bring it by various means. One uses analogies, examples, anecdotes or any part of known information to put a frame around unknown. If this frame fits, one ‘knows’. If this frame keeps much vacant space or fails to accommodate what we are trying to know, we change it. But, not every phenomenon or incident or situation can be explained with this way.
When we try to understand complex, and self-evolving kind of system, analogies or intuitive examples don’t help much. What is often done in such cases is to observe this system as holistically as one can and then try to determine set of rules by which most of the observations os system can be explained. There is nothing else we can do except this. It is kind of limitation of our cognition or bound of understanding. in this ‘reductionist’ approach, one crucial and subjective point is when to move from observations to determination of set of rules. It is rare, almost impossible that one can determine set of rules which will have no anecdotes. If there are anecdotes, then there can be two alternatives. Either observe more, add some to set and if this doesn’t work, go for incomplete but consistent structure. Or amend the set in such way that it will prove these anecdotes will be seen as non-system events. Onus is on the one who is trying to explain it.
What is the way? That depends on personalities of seekers. If one has epistemological arrogance (Thank you, Mr. Taleb), one will go by second way. But, then there should be honesty of accepting that what is being explained is fictional system resembling to system under study. But, such confession will destruct the original purpose of quest. Hence, you see, lot many philosophers claiming to explain world around them, ignoring subjective biases, anecdotes and fooling others into aura of elegant, plausible and wrong explanations. It leads to inconsistent and incomplete system. It is evident why it is inconsistent, but why it is incomplete? Because what we get out of ‘reduced’ and somewhat ‘produced’ set of premises is some fictional, quasi system. it is foolish to expect that it will answer all situations in real system.
First way, though yielding lesser credit to seeker, it leads to set which can be put to full exploitation within its limit. This understanding of limits of any ‘logical’ system is most of the time forgotten. Why? It does not seem suitable to image of ‘Man’ as intellectual conqueror. Even, on personal level, humble recognition of limits is less attractive than tag of omniscient. It is our inherent bias.
But are there systems, which can be fully explained? There is a truth in this magical, mystic philosophical funfair and it is owned by Gödel. Long back he said about such system. It can be either consistent or complete. I feel, completeness attracts us more rather than consistency. And, this makes even best of intellectuals to commit folly of naming quasi-creations as true one.
This gift of incompleteness is motivating one. Gödel has not specified degree of incompleteness. It makes us understand that perfection can be dreamt only. But, what stops us from chasing the dream, even though it is going to remain the dream?
What is problem in perceiving life system with some tailor made premises? And, if one does not do so, then what is the way to explain social organization? What do we mean by ‘explain’? ‘Explanation’ is bringing something unknown into known. We bring it by various means. One uses analogies, examples, anecdotes or any part of known information to put a frame around unknown. If this frame fits, one ‘knows’. If this frame keeps much vacant space or fails to accommodate what we are trying to know, we change it. But, not every phenomenon or incident or situation can be explained with this way.
When we try to understand complex, and self-evolving kind of system, analogies or intuitive examples don’t help much. What is often done in such cases is to observe this system as holistically as one can and then try to determine set of rules by which most of the observations os system can be explained. There is nothing else we can do except this. It is kind of limitation of our cognition or bound of understanding. in this ‘reductionist’ approach, one crucial and subjective point is when to move from observations to determination of set of rules. It is rare, almost impossible that one can determine set of rules which will have no anecdotes. If there are anecdotes, then there can be two alternatives. Either observe more, add some to set and if this doesn’t work, go for incomplete but consistent structure. Or amend the set in such way that it will prove these anecdotes will be seen as non-system events. Onus is on the one who is trying to explain it.
What is the way? That depends on personalities of seekers. If one has epistemological arrogance (Thank you, Mr. Taleb), one will go by second way. But, then there should be honesty of accepting that what is being explained is fictional system resembling to system under study. But, such confession will destruct the original purpose of quest. Hence, you see, lot many philosophers claiming to explain world around them, ignoring subjective biases, anecdotes and fooling others into aura of elegant, plausible and wrong explanations. It leads to inconsistent and incomplete system. It is evident why it is inconsistent, but why it is incomplete? Because what we get out of ‘reduced’ and somewhat ‘produced’ set of premises is some fictional, quasi system. it is foolish to expect that it will answer all situations in real system.
First way, though yielding lesser credit to seeker, it leads to set which can be put to full exploitation within its limit. This understanding of limits of any ‘logical’ system is most of the time forgotten. Why? It does not seem suitable to image of ‘Man’ as intellectual conqueror. Even, on personal level, humble recognition of limits is less attractive than tag of omniscient. It is our inherent bias.
But are there systems, which can be fully explained? There is a truth in this magical, mystic philosophical funfair and it is owned by Gödel. Long back he said about such system. It can be either consistent or complete. I feel, completeness attracts us more rather than consistency. And, this makes even best of intellectuals to commit folly of naming quasi-creations as true one.
This gift of incompleteness is motivating one. Gödel has not specified degree of incompleteness. It makes us understand that perfection can be dreamt only. But, what stops us from chasing the dream, even though it is going to remain the dream?
Saturday, January 16, 2010
About 'the' day
About the day? When did it start? When did it end? Did I learn anything or was it just remembering rush of adrenalin that I feel time to time? Is it about scenes of hills, ranges of mountains, skies, sunrise and sunset, roads and fields? Is it about people who are still searching different sort of happiness? Is it about women, who are cheerful and willing to work despite drunkard husbands, displaced homes and non-existent support structure? Is it about mix of it whole, which we chalk as problematic? Is it about urban arrogance that I encountered at the start? Is it about anything, except whirlpool of thoughts inside me?
There is one thing for sure. There is a side, which I do not know. To every sorrow defined, there is hope undefined and challenging it. To every success celebrated, there is weak but constant stream which flows in opposite and yet, happy. Leaders are not just those who preach and forget. There are few who lead their life and others’ with small but constant steps of development. Heroes are unsung, if they exist. When they are just imagined, they are worshiped.
It was not just waste, the past that I love to curse. In a person who loves complete devotion, there is freedom to give up the freedom.
It is good to see it and that too on the day, when I complete 24. What are these years gone by? Mere memories? Some footprints of dreams?
People make me hate myself. People help me to take myself. I reside in all. I found them in myself. It is urges to converse and drives of silences. I decide to love or to hate. I decide to laugh or to cry. Why not I decide to just watch it? Why not I decide to celebrate every small but sure learning? Why not I loose myself in my own search?
Happy birthday Kiran. Be happy, even if it is not birthday. After all, you take birth and die every moment.
There is one thing for sure. There is a side, which I do not know. To every sorrow defined, there is hope undefined and challenging it. To every success celebrated, there is weak but constant stream which flows in opposite and yet, happy. Leaders are not just those who preach and forget. There are few who lead their life and others’ with small but constant steps of development. Heroes are unsung, if they exist. When they are just imagined, they are worshiped.
It was not just waste, the past that I love to curse. In a person who loves complete devotion, there is freedom to give up the freedom.
It is good to see it and that too on the day, when I complete 24. What are these years gone by? Mere memories? Some footprints of dreams?
People make me hate myself. People help me to take myself. I reside in all. I found them in myself. It is urges to converse and drives of silences. I decide to love or to hate. I decide to laugh or to cry. Why not I decide to just watch it? Why not I decide to celebrate every small but sure learning? Why not I loose myself in my own search?
Happy birthday Kiran. Be happy, even if it is not birthday. After all, you take birth and die every moment.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Being conscious
Consciousness is gift, is it? I don’t think so. Especially when one is aware of being aware, conscious of being conscious. Knowledge, after threshold of being aware is dangerous. It ruins happiness and it can take person to ends where it will challenge survival.
Last day I was reading about consciousness. I am curious about how do I understand. The simplest answer is I understand due to my consciousness. If one studies brain, there are partial answers about what happens in memory and other signals when this cognition happens. But this neural-biotic system is so delicately arranged, every small part fits every other tiny part so well, coordination among them which is chief ingredient of ‘conscience’ make me think who runs this system. There is one simple answer is this system runs itself. This circular logic is what we avoid in any logical system. When we understand that there are millions and millions of particles called ‘neurons’ that makes us conscious and there are varieties of these particles which do their assignment almost without error. Does this accuracy exist just by its own? We have been conditioned to seek for reason, for cause and effect and for unique answer. Accepting something can be there just for its own sake is challenge to our ‘rational’ appearances. It is not hint of answer that drives research for ultimate meaning, it is hurt to pride of being intelligent that makes people produce answers for ‘being conscious’.
Though we are conscious, we are not free of biases. Reason does not drive our behavior. If reason is not working in some person, it is instincts and desires that shape our acts. Our senses are at work all the time we are alive. But, apart from this senses, we have one sense of being sensitive. This central sense cannot work on its own. It is supported by peripheral senses. But even though peripheral senses work, person will be unable to sense that they work without this central sense. It is strange balance. Both are necessary but not sufficient. Hence, we cannot reduce human being to set of characteristics. And, this inability to reduce human being to set of characteristics makes any study of human being, by focusing on any sort of behavior, go berserk. Once a limited territory of regulated behaviors is crossed, axioms and theorems are not useful to explain human behavior. We have choice though. We can have excellent explanations of few behaviors or tentative explanations of almost all behaviors. What to choose?
I see one bias working at very high level of intelligence. Bias of belief that whatever question mind raises is appropriate and answering this questions needs further excavation into logical mess. But, question can arise out of inconsistency of possible connections. There is general frame of behavior fitted in our mind and when we get information of any incident it generally fits into this general frame of reference. It makes connection with pre-existing information. When such connections have set of wrong connections, we can feel question. But, then it is just about altering connection of existing information, not inviting new load of information to muddle whatever chaos already existing.
I am not imagining. This happens when we feel questioned about why other person is behaving so and so. We seek for reason in our or other person’s behavior, past or external events. Are the there? My experience is negative.
Such questions are not needed to be answered. They are needed to be dissolved. We have to overcome our pride, though we are not feeling it, of being logical. I need to accept that there is bound, limit to my understanding of myself and hence understanding of anybody else. This view may generate some contradictions. But contradiction can be there. There is nothing saying that logic is perfect.
Uncertainty and randomness have their pleasure. To feel them, one needs to shade habit of seeing everything through imbibed reasoning framework.
Let it be! Let just be fooled by randomness and feel the foolishness. After all, we live for fun, not for answers if they don’t yield fun.
Last day I was reading about consciousness. I am curious about how do I understand. The simplest answer is I understand due to my consciousness. If one studies brain, there are partial answers about what happens in memory and other signals when this cognition happens. But this neural-biotic system is so delicately arranged, every small part fits every other tiny part so well, coordination among them which is chief ingredient of ‘conscience’ make me think who runs this system. There is one simple answer is this system runs itself. This circular logic is what we avoid in any logical system. When we understand that there are millions and millions of particles called ‘neurons’ that makes us conscious and there are varieties of these particles which do their assignment almost without error. Does this accuracy exist just by its own? We have been conditioned to seek for reason, for cause and effect and for unique answer. Accepting something can be there just for its own sake is challenge to our ‘rational’ appearances. It is not hint of answer that drives research for ultimate meaning, it is hurt to pride of being intelligent that makes people produce answers for ‘being conscious’.
Though we are conscious, we are not free of biases. Reason does not drive our behavior. If reason is not working in some person, it is instincts and desires that shape our acts. Our senses are at work all the time we are alive. But, apart from this senses, we have one sense of being sensitive. This central sense cannot work on its own. It is supported by peripheral senses. But even though peripheral senses work, person will be unable to sense that they work without this central sense. It is strange balance. Both are necessary but not sufficient. Hence, we cannot reduce human being to set of characteristics. And, this inability to reduce human being to set of characteristics makes any study of human being, by focusing on any sort of behavior, go berserk. Once a limited territory of regulated behaviors is crossed, axioms and theorems are not useful to explain human behavior. We have choice though. We can have excellent explanations of few behaviors or tentative explanations of almost all behaviors. What to choose?
I see one bias working at very high level of intelligence. Bias of belief that whatever question mind raises is appropriate and answering this questions needs further excavation into logical mess. But, question can arise out of inconsistency of possible connections. There is general frame of behavior fitted in our mind and when we get information of any incident it generally fits into this general frame of reference. It makes connection with pre-existing information. When such connections have set of wrong connections, we can feel question. But, then it is just about altering connection of existing information, not inviting new load of information to muddle whatever chaos already existing.
I am not imagining. This happens when we feel questioned about why other person is behaving so and so. We seek for reason in our or other person’s behavior, past or external events. Are the there? My experience is negative.
Such questions are not needed to be answered. They are needed to be dissolved. We have to overcome our pride, though we are not feeling it, of being logical. I need to accept that there is bound, limit to my understanding of myself and hence understanding of anybody else. This view may generate some contradictions. But contradiction can be there. There is nothing saying that logic is perfect.
Uncertainty and randomness have their pleasure. To feel them, one needs to shade habit of seeing everything through imbibed reasoning framework.
Let it be! Let just be fooled by randomness and feel the foolishness. After all, we live for fun, not for answers if they don’t yield fun.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Why Philosophy
We form beliefs. And, they are useful. They provide us initial set of judgments for any choice. It is human system to reduce uncertainty to set of possible and then most possible alternatives. Somehow, in courses with less creative exercises, like Philosophy or Development Studies, where most of the times bored with life souls put light on issues which are useless for working world, an argument is made about pluralist concerns. They debate about End and Means. They debate about happiness and what gives us that Happiness. They criticize pursuit of wealth. And, to exhibit that they are no less intelligent than wonder working Physicists or Engineers, they create moral dilemmas and prove how unsolvable they are, even by them. So they take this un-solvability of their ‘discipline’ as flag of intellectual victory on enemy which is never there(who will fight with this intellectual samurais, fighting for all mortals who do not understand that all their decisions are ‘monoconcentretic’ while they have to be ‘decision and no-decision at the same time’?) with great glibness, ability to twist logic by using anecdotes and dexterousness of bamboozle audience/reader with inescapable laps of metaphysical grand-pri. If these courses have not come into my way, then I might have not bothered to ‘praise’ these wonders of nature. But, since, being cursed of philosophical thoughts, I often encounter such preachers. But, they help me in some way. They show me how deep the sink is.
But then why philosophy? Why do I need to seek the purpose of the game? Why can’t I just play it or quit it? May be, I am supposed to be commentator or umpire! But, then I want to be good one. I want to decide or comment when I can form firm belief, although for the time till it get disproved. And, what is the way to form believes? There is no logic which can lead us to form belief. Conviction is trigger for Logic, not the other way round. So, I observe people. I see reflections of my actions, emotions in them. Explaining them is what I take as explaining myself. There is something which I might not get reflected in any other individual. But, then that will serve as my fixed point. That is what I am.
Explaining human actions with some non-human principal is unacceptable. Our questions about ourselves are our own creations. So they have their solutions in our creations. I am puzzled by why somebody mostly like me behaves in a way different than me? Why he feels which I do not feel directly? Can some principles answer these? No. it is continuous observations of what is happening around us and putting these observations on own belief system to form a stand can answer it for myself. Circling in pluralism or accepting world as it is ridiculous and will never lead to decision. If we closely look to our ‘understanding’, we will see our limitations. I understand present moment when it becomes past. I understand ‘here’ when I move to a place other than what I want to see. And, knowing past is not at all useful to live uncertainty. We cannot do what is right. We can avoid doing what has been proved wrong. And, that’s the only help past and observations can offer.
I have not answered why philosophy. I hate it, right from my heart. But, then I encounter something which makes me to go back and think about worth of this life, mine and around me. today, when I spend most of the day with innocent happiness of just watching what is happening around me, talking on what I really feel and not loosing myself in dream-memory trap, I thought at least today, I won’t be bothered by the chasing ‘why’. When I was walking towards railway station, I saw one person selling balloons. The stick in his hand, where all balloons are tied was almost full. And, there are many shops of modern, expensive toys in the bazaar around him. Nobody was looking at him. When I looked at him, he was caressing one of his balloons. And, his eyes were expressing what he feared very clearly. There was not much sell. And, those balloons are hanging, colorful, cheerful and yet, such a joyous expression cannot earn life. Where does he stand in this city? Where are the children who ask for balloons? His face made me think again of what this whole game is. It is unavoidable.
It is one small girl selling flowers that I still remember. She kept urging and running after the car to buy flowers from her. And, then I encountered with many who are searching for some small real happiness and, this city has no corner where they got it. Still they live, still they strive and I still think, why, why do I live?
But then why philosophy? Why do I need to seek the purpose of the game? Why can’t I just play it or quit it? May be, I am supposed to be commentator or umpire! But, then I want to be good one. I want to decide or comment when I can form firm belief, although for the time till it get disproved. And, what is the way to form believes? There is no logic which can lead us to form belief. Conviction is trigger for Logic, not the other way round. So, I observe people. I see reflections of my actions, emotions in them. Explaining them is what I take as explaining myself. There is something which I might not get reflected in any other individual. But, then that will serve as my fixed point. That is what I am.
Explaining human actions with some non-human principal is unacceptable. Our questions about ourselves are our own creations. So they have their solutions in our creations. I am puzzled by why somebody mostly like me behaves in a way different than me? Why he feels which I do not feel directly? Can some principles answer these? No. it is continuous observations of what is happening around us and putting these observations on own belief system to form a stand can answer it for myself. Circling in pluralism or accepting world as it is ridiculous and will never lead to decision. If we closely look to our ‘understanding’, we will see our limitations. I understand present moment when it becomes past. I understand ‘here’ when I move to a place other than what I want to see. And, knowing past is not at all useful to live uncertainty. We cannot do what is right. We can avoid doing what has been proved wrong. And, that’s the only help past and observations can offer.
I have not answered why philosophy. I hate it, right from my heart. But, then I encounter something which makes me to go back and think about worth of this life, mine and around me. today, when I spend most of the day with innocent happiness of just watching what is happening around me, talking on what I really feel and not loosing myself in dream-memory trap, I thought at least today, I won’t be bothered by the chasing ‘why’. When I was walking towards railway station, I saw one person selling balloons. The stick in his hand, where all balloons are tied was almost full. And, there are many shops of modern, expensive toys in the bazaar around him. Nobody was looking at him. When I looked at him, he was caressing one of his balloons. And, his eyes were expressing what he feared very clearly. There was not much sell. And, those balloons are hanging, colorful, cheerful and yet, such a joyous expression cannot earn life. Where does he stand in this city? Where are the children who ask for balloons? His face made me think again of what this whole game is. It is unavoidable.
It is one small girl selling flowers that I still remember. She kept urging and running after the car to buy flowers from her. And, then I encountered with many who are searching for some small real happiness and, this city has no corner where they got it. Still they live, still they strive and I still think, why, why do I live?
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
After AVATAR
Aesthetics had lot to say about what is in the story that makes it story. Experts of literature might show some trends augmented with hefty names to indicate how stories have evolved over time. Story might be mirror image description of day to day life. it might be horror story, suspense story or romantic one. Considering all this variations, the soul of story which has impresses story tellers and listeners right from the ages is ‘GOOD against BAD’ with difficult but sure triumph of win. After watching 3-D AVATAR, the huge feeling for leap of humanity, near impossible happening in front your eyes and simulated yet believable actions, I wonder what was new in those techno-packed, perfectly managed 3 hours. Nothing. The good old ‘triumph of GOOD over BAD’ wrapped in state of the art or futuristic manner. PAISA WASOOL!!
If stories of GOOD defeating BAD are ubiquitous, through time, through space, why reality seems contrasting? Do we want stories telling about situations which will not be lived in reality? Do nostalgia, unfulfilled longings make stories? What roles stories play in our understanding? Are they mostly source of pastime? Are they carrier of values, morals and social structures? Are they motivated by what is happening around or do they influence potential happenings? The one sure thing, stories are hardly questions. Most of the time, they are answers, generally in over-simplified form.
If I think about what I think, I find that most of the times it is either memory or dream. The time independent thinking happens very rarely. Stories are either dreams or memories. Yet, being somewhere ambiguously away or rooted in reality, they shape actions. What pleasure I derive when I watch a movie? Apart from technological wonders, it is connection of different happenings that makes a story. But, when, it is not GOOD v/s BAD, there is no simple solution that can come out of the story. There is no fun, no hope, no positive stimulus that public can get. Portraying GOOD against BAD, labeling guys WHITE and BLACK (no racism, but shades of behaviors) and making hero’s side weaker, virtuous and ultimate winner is the key. This is meat, what remains are spices that author can add. Good spices, Harry Potter. Bad spices, movies that we do not remember.
The truth that we do not learn and even if we learn, do not practice is ‘there is nothing definite’. It is cliché. But, yet, we behave as if we have forgotten it. Regulatory methods are applied on thoughts, lives, arts and anything that seem to be manageable. We decide according to some ideal state that we cannot visualize. We hate to remember that chaos, disorder and randomness are certainties. It seems shameful for humanity that they are random. We need world anthropocentric. Man has some place, some work deserved. Controlling nature is our hereditary dream. We hate impulses, we replace them by values. We hate behaving by natural cycles; we put technology to make it suitable. The one conquered post reveals next frontier. The process goes on. Ideas emerge. Systems evolve and collapse just when they seem eternal. And, yet, story goes on. Memories are short. Thoughtfulness is exotic. It is simpler to make head empty, pay 350 rupees, buy pop-corns and watch ‘AVATAR’. We need simplicity, even if it is not simple really!
If stories of GOOD defeating BAD are ubiquitous, through time, through space, why reality seems contrasting? Do we want stories telling about situations which will not be lived in reality? Do nostalgia, unfulfilled longings make stories? What roles stories play in our understanding? Are they mostly source of pastime? Are they carrier of values, morals and social structures? Are they motivated by what is happening around or do they influence potential happenings? The one sure thing, stories are hardly questions. Most of the time, they are answers, generally in over-simplified form.
If I think about what I think, I find that most of the times it is either memory or dream. The time independent thinking happens very rarely. Stories are either dreams or memories. Yet, being somewhere ambiguously away or rooted in reality, they shape actions. What pleasure I derive when I watch a movie? Apart from technological wonders, it is connection of different happenings that makes a story. But, when, it is not GOOD v/s BAD, there is no simple solution that can come out of the story. There is no fun, no hope, no positive stimulus that public can get. Portraying GOOD against BAD, labeling guys WHITE and BLACK (no racism, but shades of behaviors) and making hero’s side weaker, virtuous and ultimate winner is the key. This is meat, what remains are spices that author can add. Good spices, Harry Potter. Bad spices, movies that we do not remember.
The truth that we do not learn and even if we learn, do not practice is ‘there is nothing definite’. It is cliché. But, yet, we behave as if we have forgotten it. Regulatory methods are applied on thoughts, lives, arts and anything that seem to be manageable. We decide according to some ideal state that we cannot visualize. We hate to remember that chaos, disorder and randomness are certainties. It seems shameful for humanity that they are random. We need world anthropocentric. Man has some place, some work deserved. Controlling nature is our hereditary dream. We hate impulses, we replace them by values. We hate behaving by natural cycles; we put technology to make it suitable. The one conquered post reveals next frontier. The process goes on. Ideas emerge. Systems evolve and collapse just when they seem eternal. And, yet, story goes on. Memories are short. Thoughtfulness is exotic. It is simpler to make head empty, pay 350 rupees, buy pop-corns and watch ‘AVATAR’. We need simplicity, even if it is not simple really!
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Solitude
Why it is so, impulse to converse, to tell what last moment told me…
Was it worth, was it enough to move inch ahead in path…
Do I want to talk to you, the one whom I know…
Or I want you, stranger with familiar anonymity..
Why do I speak when real conversation is done without anything outward…
What is there to be known will be known…
What is the difference if I say it or someone else or no one…
Conversation, is it naturally in my veins, but then also the silence
Is it just habit I took on or is it substitution for time that I spent with myself…
Can I drink my own words when solitude is eager to speak?
Can I touch to my own carvings when I do not recognize myself?
Can I gift myself a world woven and created by my own, when I deny any signal from the world?
If I leave myself here, and,
Swim by this current of my words,
Walk along shores of these poems,
Travel by road of selfless search,
Will I reach to a man, who lives in me, yet so stranger to me?
Was it worth, was it enough to move inch ahead in path…
Do I want to talk to you, the one whom I know…
Or I want you, stranger with familiar anonymity..
Why do I speak when real conversation is done without anything outward…
What is there to be known will be known…
What is the difference if I say it or someone else or no one…
Conversation, is it naturally in my veins, but then also the silence
Is it just habit I took on or is it substitution for time that I spent with myself…
Can I drink my own words when solitude is eager to speak?
Can I touch to my own carvings when I do not recognize myself?
Can I gift myself a world woven and created by my own, when I deny any signal from the world?
If I leave myself here, and,
Swim by this current of my words,
Walk along shores of these poems,
Travel by road of selfless search,
Will I reach to a man, who lives in me, yet so stranger to me?
Saturday, January 2, 2010
After NATARANG
And I was in front of movie screen. I needed 15 minutes to reach to one of the old movie theaters in my city and 20 rupees (!) to get in. Fans running with limited electric supply, dress circle people sitting on the chairs as they are on the sofas in their bungalows, words flowing around me about anything under this sun and then suddenly screen lit, names flash without troubling much and the song which I expected to encounter somewhere later in the movie, starts, theater, full with whistles, theater full with cries, at a times vulgar, city with rural heart, is full on….
The movie was Natarang’. Atul Kulkarni has performed role of his lifetime. He gained weight and then lost it more miraculously. He expresses what an artist living in the worst suited conditions for can feel. He expressed what a person trying to live in the situation where mere subsistence is worth. But. More than it, above from all, he made me feel the shift an artist can face, when he is made to perform the role he never imagined. And, then storms that were inevitably lead to him, challenging his identity, as a person, as an artist, as a man! And, yet he lives, he wins, and that too not leaving the art which gave him name, took away all which was dear to him and brought him to a point where he was no more he. There are flaws in the story, sudden jumps of un-reality, double meaning jokes and some vague representation of what situation could have been. It would have been more intense, more effectively represented. Nevertheless, when it was over, the last name from credit list flashed on the screen, I was in one another world, a strange peace, a new understanding of what these performing arts are.
‘Tamasha’ is essentially rural performing art. Even though now it is been credited by hegemony of Marathi culture by all so called urban cultural stalwarts, merely two or three generations before it was ‘place of scoundrels’. It is vulgar. But, then it has to be. A labor spending day in the field, in a family with ageing parents, tried wife and ever-growing number of children seeks purely sensual entertainment. Is this not what naturally comes to mind of those? May be urban mind cannot accept such direct call to sexual expressions. They love it sugar quoted. But, then what sense we can make about Devid Dhawan’s movies? Is it not the fact that large chunk of urban population watch movies which do not need any mental or emotional assistance? People, with spending most of the time in survival activity, need entertainment that calls directly to their senses. ‘Tamasha’ did it effectively for years. I am not denying that it generated some serious social question. It was surely chauvinistic. But, then it was time that shaped it like this. Artists involved in making it what it was, did it mostly as what market demanded. It is true for all art forms, which are for masses. They need to respond to what their public needs. They did it. And, even in these days, when dholaki is no more heard, pagote ans sheli are no more thrown in air as response to sensational step by dancer and ghungarus are no more lightening stage, music can make wonder. Natarang did it.
Social fabric is woven by many individual threads. The colors and patterns are not planned before they actually come to existence. They are visible much after people who made it left the scene. Now when, expressions are becoming same (i.e.globalization) all around the globe, people who in past made life worth living in different corners of earth and remain in the darkness still someone discovered them much after they left us, are getting their standing ovations, possibly the last one.
Here is mine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)