Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Moment
It always happens in a single moment. Suddenly you see things clearly. The fog of confusion dissappears and judgement becomes decisive. You wonder what triggered it. You wish that moment lasted forever, but it doesn't. Slowly you sink back into your slumber, become comfortable in your life and take everything for granted. You lose that sense of intrigue at the very awareness of oneself. And then you begin wondering whether that moment was real because you don't see what you saw then. Until that moment happens again. That moment for me happenned today, again.
Friday, September 12, 2008
US Elections
When I heard Sarah Palin's speach it didn't really feel good. Those sarcastic under the belt statements reeked more of theatre than good politics. What gave me that sinking feeling is that she was good on the stage, and unfortunately, that is all what most people see. I have never lived in the US and for that matter never wish to if the Republicans win this time too. But I like the battle of ideologies that is played in the US elections and like most academically qualified people, I support the Democrats.
Obama in one of his TV interviews said that Republicans don't govern the country that well but are good campaigners. And that is a sad fact, which Obama, inspite of being aware of, proved yet again. I fail to understand why he didn't choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate. I guess with the kind of wave he was riding on, he felt he didn't need her. And that is the problem with these Ivy League educated people, they underestimate the uneducated masses. Biden is a non entity when compared to Clinton. People were already calling the Obama-Clinton a 'dream team' and I believe Palin would have had no chance against her. But what is done is done.
I had read an article which said that people vote for politicians who inspire them. Politicians with whom they can identify themselves. They vote solely based on emotion. And the failure of Democrats to appeal to people lies in a lack of understanding on the part of the Democrats, while the voters have failed to understand that just because a politician can make a dramatic speech and hunt moose does not mean that he/she is a good administrator. People look at personality and not policies. Unfortunately 8 years of Bush rule hasn't made the Americans any smarter. With the 4 point lead that McCain has now, it seems they are ready to vote for him (actually her).
Though the situation is not new for an Indian. The Congress still finds it hard to get votes without a Gandhi at its helm and the south is known to have film stars influence elections. Sometimes I feel democracy overestimates the intelligence of the people.
Obama in one of his TV interviews said that Republicans don't govern the country that well but are good campaigners. And that is a sad fact, which Obama, inspite of being aware of, proved yet again. I fail to understand why he didn't choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate. I guess with the kind of wave he was riding on, he felt he didn't need her. And that is the problem with these Ivy League educated people, they underestimate the uneducated masses. Biden is a non entity when compared to Clinton. People were already calling the Obama-Clinton a 'dream team' and I believe Palin would have had no chance against her. But what is done is done.
I had read an article which said that people vote for politicians who inspire them. Politicians with whom they can identify themselves. They vote solely based on emotion. And the failure of Democrats to appeal to people lies in a lack of understanding on the part of the Democrats, while the voters have failed to understand that just because a politician can make a dramatic speech and hunt moose does not mean that he/she is a good administrator. People look at personality and not policies. Unfortunately 8 years of Bush rule hasn't made the Americans any smarter. With the 4 point lead that McCain has now, it seems they are ready to vote for him (actually her).
Though the situation is not new for an Indian. The Congress still finds it hard to get votes without a Gandhi at its helm and the south is known to have film stars influence elections. Sometimes I feel democracy overestimates the intelligence of the people.
Identity
Cable TV came to Baroda in early to mid nineties. So I basically grew up watching Doordarshan. The state decided what I watched on TV, what I read in my text books and what should be shown in the movies. So I like everybody felt proud to be an Indian, proud of India's diversity, culture, religions, mountains, rivers, valleys, languages, food etc etc. The usual bad guys against India in movies and some TV series were either the British (read Tom Alter) and Pakistanis (How could I forget Mogambo here?). Every Independence Day I like most Indians felt proud for the years of struggle against the British and believed strongly that Indian independence was a good thing.
Did we ever think that we have been brainwashed into believing all this by a nation whose survival depends on such a belief. How else could it send people on a battle front to die for India. Recently Kashmir has seen a lot of unrest and it would be difficult to find a single person who shared this concept of India with me. For a Kashmiri he/she is a Kashmiri first (read Muslim first) and then anything else. I often ask myself whether their belief in a Kashmiri identity is in any way different from my concept of an Indian identity. What I mean is that Kashmir for most part of history was at least one nation, while India never was. Taking a step further, it would not be unfair to say that India, before it came into existence on 15 August 1947, had never existed as a single entity. It would not be wrong to say that there existed nations within what is now India and they were fiercly nationalist and fought against each other. Now the Indian government has made us believe that the concept of India is nobler, better, but do we ever question that whether it actually is? I can already see myself as being branded as an anti-national.
I had read in a book there was only one way of creating a completely fair society. Get a group of people to design it, such that the people know that after they have designed the system they will die and and will be reborn. What they don't know is which section of the society they will be reborn in. This will ensure that they create favourable conditions for every section of the society. I am an Indian and understand that Kashmir is important for the concept of India and support the government in its policies there. But what if I was a Kashmiri living under the shadow of the gun, under the fear that I could be the next victim? Would I still want India to exert its control over Kashmir?
It is not for Indians to realise but for Kashmiris to understand that in this clash of identities India is a stronger power and that it is impossible for Kashmiris to exert their concept of nationhood. But for that every Kashmiri has to let bygones be bygones and look at the situation objectively. Every Kashmiri has to realise that Kashmiriyat is similar to Indianism, just a concept in our minds. India has never asked Kashmiris to give up their identity. It actually gives them special rights under the constitution. Every person has an identity and if we keep segregating people, at one extreme end we could have each individual representing one country. It is not difficult to find things that make Kashmiris similar to the rest of India. Start from there and make the most of what the world order has to offer. True freedom is to break away from these predefined concepts and to be able to determine ones own identity.
Did we ever think that we have been brainwashed into believing all this by a nation whose survival depends on such a belief. How else could it send people on a battle front to die for India. Recently Kashmir has seen a lot of unrest and it would be difficult to find a single person who shared this concept of India with me. For a Kashmiri he/she is a Kashmiri first (read Muslim first) and then anything else. I often ask myself whether their belief in a Kashmiri identity is in any way different from my concept of an Indian identity. What I mean is that Kashmir for most part of history was at least one nation, while India never was. Taking a step further, it would not be unfair to say that India, before it came into existence on 15 August 1947, had never existed as a single entity. It would not be wrong to say that there existed nations within what is now India and they were fiercly nationalist and fought against each other. Now the Indian government has made us believe that the concept of India is nobler, better, but do we ever question that whether it actually is? I can already see myself as being branded as an anti-national.
I had read in a book there was only one way of creating a completely fair society. Get a group of people to design it, such that the people know that after they have designed the system they will die and and will be reborn. What they don't know is which section of the society they will be reborn in. This will ensure that they create favourable conditions for every section of the society. I am an Indian and understand that Kashmir is important for the concept of India and support the government in its policies there. But what if I was a Kashmiri living under the shadow of the gun, under the fear that I could be the next victim? Would I still want India to exert its control over Kashmir?
It is not for Indians to realise but for Kashmiris to understand that in this clash of identities India is a stronger power and that it is impossible for Kashmiris to exert their concept of nationhood. But for that every Kashmiri has to let bygones be bygones and look at the situation objectively. Every Kashmiri has to realise that Kashmiriyat is similar to Indianism, just a concept in our minds. India has never asked Kashmiris to give up their identity. It actually gives them special rights under the constitution. Every person has an identity and if we keep segregating people, at one extreme end we could have each individual representing one country. It is not difficult to find things that make Kashmiris similar to the rest of India. Start from there and make the most of what the world order has to offer. True freedom is to break away from these predefined concepts and to be able to determine ones own identity.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Morality???
Robert Pirsig (I do admire the way he thinks) in his book Lila describes an incident where he and a colleague are walking with the chief of a native American tribe. After some time a dog starts walking beside them. Pirsig's colleague thinks that the dog looks weird and asks the chief,” What kind of dog is that?". The chief thinks for a while and then says, "That is a good dog". The answer surprises them both because what they are referring to is the breed of the dog. This is what Pirsig describes is the dichotomy between the western culture and Native American culture. The western culture has devoted millions of dollars, human effort and huge universities to help humans understand what is what, while very little effort has been spent on finding out what is good. The problem according to me is not whether a government should try to imbibe good among its populace, rather than spend millions on academic institutions to understand our world. The problem according to me is whether the government or any other body has a right to determine what is good for its people.
I guess, the only country today which does that unabashedly is China, and also a few religious countries. What I will discuss is whether it is good for a government or a social organisation to enforce its view of what is right. The world has been evolving and in the process has seen various philosophies gain strength at different times. I will classify each of these philosophies into two categories: philosophies allowing individual freedom of thought, philosophies enforcing one view of the world. The world, and more so India, will be analysed with respect to four phases it has been through:
1. The golden age of Indian philosophy - The time of Buddha, Mahavir, Kautilya and many other schools of thought
2. The advent of Islam and Christianity its successes
3. Communism
4. Western Democratic Tradition
The first phase was when India was culturally and socially dominating the world. It was the time of intense thought and also freedom from dogma. The people were trying to escape from only one view of truth and as I have heard it was very common for people to adopt different schools of thought at different stages in their lives. Greece was going through a similar period with the great philosophers deviating from prevalent concepts of what is right and wrong and redefining morals. India and Greece were the success stories of that time and I believe their successes defined the morality of those times which allowed people to think for themselves.
The second phase defines the spread of Christianity in Europe and Islam from the Middle East to north India. Now both the Abrahamic religions are quite conformist. The church ruled over most of Europe through the middle ages while Islam kept making its conquests into Europe on one hand and eastern Asia on the other. Both the philosophies have a predetermined morality and both have enforced their concepts at times by use of violence. So while they succeeded, conformist thought became the norm while individual freedoms became old fashioned.
The third and the fourth phases almost came together. The freedom from the church created the renaissance and eventually led to the industrial revolution in Europe while the resulting inequalities led to the birth of communism. While democracy was adopted by most of west Europe and America, communism became the ideology in Eastern Europe and then China. Communism was definitely conformist, while pure democracy allowed individual the right to think for oneself.
My analysis brings me back to the same result I had come to when I was trying to analyse skepticism. Indian and Greek cultures progressed not for some inherent quality in them but essentially because at that time the two countries were socially, militarily and economically stronger. Islam and Christianity spread because the people who adopted them exercised significant control over the world affairs. Democracy and Communism had the world polarised because they were both supported by two very large and influential countries.
I will take the example of the concept of celebrity here. When Shahrukh Khan wears a certain kind of clothes, talks in a certain kind of way it becomes widely accepted. You look at the 60s clothes and find them funny. 15 years down the line our children will find our clothes in our old pictures funny. The point I am trying to make is that the concept of right and wrong keeps changing and hardly do we realise how we get influenced by personality (read celebrity) and society in our definition of what is acceptable and what is not.
There are two incidents I would like to describe here. James Watson (of the Watson and Crick DNA model fame) some time back made a statement which in essence meant that Africans had lesser intelligence. I was discussing this with some of my friends who were appalled at the statement saying that they were quite disappointed with him. The reaction to the statement was so unanimous throughout the world and he became a pariah and I believe he had to later take the statement back.
The second incident relates to Salman Rushdie and his book the Satanic Verses in which, I hear, he wrote something against Islam. A fatwa was passed against him as his life was at risk. Now though the western world's reaction was more social and political rather than actual physical violence but in both cases, non adherance to a particular point of view was not accepted.
What I essentially mean is that though the western culture seems to promote individual freedom it finds itself at times incapable of accepting difference of thought. The problem that I am trying to solve on a personal level is to find out whether I am right in supporting democracy and opposing intolerance. If success is the criteria then it would be impossible to determine. I guess this decision too like most has to be a personal one, which means less rational and more emotional.
I guess, the only country today which does that unabashedly is China, and also a few religious countries. What I will discuss is whether it is good for a government or a social organisation to enforce its view of what is right. The world has been evolving and in the process has seen various philosophies gain strength at different times. I will classify each of these philosophies into two categories: philosophies allowing individual freedom of thought, philosophies enforcing one view of the world. The world, and more so India, will be analysed with respect to four phases it has been through:
1. The golden age of Indian philosophy - The time of Buddha, Mahavir, Kautilya and many other schools of thought
2. The advent of Islam and Christianity its successes
3. Communism
4. Western Democratic Tradition
The first phase was when India was culturally and socially dominating the world. It was the time of intense thought and also freedom from dogma. The people were trying to escape from only one view of truth and as I have heard it was very common for people to adopt different schools of thought at different stages in their lives. Greece was going through a similar period with the great philosophers deviating from prevalent concepts of what is right and wrong and redefining morals. India and Greece were the success stories of that time and I believe their successes defined the morality of those times which allowed people to think for themselves.
The second phase defines the spread of Christianity in Europe and Islam from the Middle East to north India. Now both the Abrahamic religions are quite conformist. The church ruled over most of Europe through the middle ages while Islam kept making its conquests into Europe on one hand and eastern Asia on the other. Both the philosophies have a predetermined morality and both have enforced their concepts at times by use of violence. So while they succeeded, conformist thought became the norm while individual freedoms became old fashioned.
The third and the fourth phases almost came together. The freedom from the church created the renaissance and eventually led to the industrial revolution in Europe while the resulting inequalities led to the birth of communism. While democracy was adopted by most of west Europe and America, communism became the ideology in Eastern Europe and then China. Communism was definitely conformist, while pure democracy allowed individual the right to think for oneself.
My analysis brings me back to the same result I had come to when I was trying to analyse skepticism. Indian and Greek cultures progressed not for some inherent quality in them but essentially because at that time the two countries were socially, militarily and economically stronger. Islam and Christianity spread because the people who adopted them exercised significant control over the world affairs. Democracy and Communism had the world polarised because they were both supported by two very large and influential countries.
I will take the example of the concept of celebrity here. When Shahrukh Khan wears a certain kind of clothes, talks in a certain kind of way it becomes widely accepted. You look at the 60s clothes and find them funny. 15 years down the line our children will find our clothes in our old pictures funny. The point I am trying to make is that the concept of right and wrong keeps changing and hardly do we realise how we get influenced by personality (read celebrity) and society in our definition of what is acceptable and what is not.
There are two incidents I would like to describe here. James Watson (of the Watson and Crick DNA model fame) some time back made a statement which in essence meant that Africans had lesser intelligence. I was discussing this with some of my friends who were appalled at the statement saying that they were quite disappointed with him. The reaction to the statement was so unanimous throughout the world and he became a pariah and I believe he had to later take the statement back.
The second incident relates to Salman Rushdie and his book the Satanic Verses in which, I hear, he wrote something against Islam. A fatwa was passed against him as his life was at risk. Now though the western world's reaction was more social and political rather than actual physical violence but in both cases, non adherance to a particular point of view was not accepted.
What I essentially mean is that though the western culture seems to promote individual freedom it finds itself at times incapable of accepting difference of thought. The problem that I am trying to solve on a personal level is to find out whether I am right in supporting democracy and opposing intolerance. If success is the criteria then it would be impossible to determine. I guess this decision too like most has to be a personal one, which means less rational and more emotional.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Yet....
A child that hasn't grown yet.
A journey that hasn't started yet.
A thought that isn't complete yet.
A life, that hasn't been lived yet.
The wait is not over yet.
A journey that hasn't started yet.
A thought that isn't complete yet.
A life, that hasn't been lived yet.
The wait is not over yet.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Ideas
Ideas only exist inside the brain. The only time these ideas exist outside it is when they reside in someone else's brain. The reason most people don't realise that ideas are just mental constructs, is because they live among a group of people with similar ideas. It is quite obvious that if an idea exists in everyone's mind then it must be real. I remember when on our honeymoon we made a stopover at Chamba, a small town in Himachal Pradesh. It is located in a valley and if you ignore the crowd and the chaos, the surrounds and specially the Shiva temple are quite beautiful. While walking back from the temple we stopped over at a shop to buy some shawls for our mothers, and a conversation started with the shop owner who was a lady. She started telling us about how lord Shiva came and resided on the peak near the town once a year and how there was a big fair conducted during this period. Her excitement was quite infectious. Now, no one has ever actually seen lord Shiva sit on that peak and it is just an idea. Even if we consider that lord Shiva represents the cosmic entity not the personified form, then it can be argued that He exists everywhere and not just on that peak. But this idea or folklore was so widely accepted in the town that I believe the woman thought it was real. Even if the woman thought that it was just a myth, the fact that the whole town celebrated the myth shouldn't seem surprising to an outsider.
I once had a discussion with my colleague, who was once a Hindu and has recently adopted Christianity, and as is with any new convert, his beliefs are very strong. Now it is widely accepted that the Bible was written by different people at different times. I just asked him whether it ever occurred to him that the Bible might not actually be God’s own words and be just written by well-intentioned human beings. And he said he believed the Bible is entirely passed on to humans (he uses the word ‘man’) by God himself. Faith and logic are so completely contradictory. Similarly, no one can ever know whether the Koran is Allah's will. And hence the fact that you never see anyone actually sit on the peak, is something no one in the town notices, should not sound out of place even to westerners. After all many of their kin believe that God created light and then He created the sun. The sequence might seem wrong to most people but the belief in a God that takes care of them is so comforting that they choose to ignore these small aberrations.
I once had a discussion with my colleague, who was once a Hindu and has recently adopted Christianity, and as is with any new convert, his beliefs are very strong. Now it is widely accepted that the Bible was written by different people at different times. I just asked him whether it ever occurred to him that the Bible might not actually be God’s own words and be just written by well-intentioned human beings. And he said he believed the Bible is entirely passed on to humans (he uses the word ‘man’) by God himself. Faith and logic are so completely contradictory. Similarly, no one can ever know whether the Koran is Allah's will. And hence the fact that you never see anyone actually sit on the peak, is something no one in the town notices, should not sound out of place even to westerners. After all many of their kin believe that God created light and then He created the sun. The sequence might seem wrong to most people but the belief in a God that takes care of them is so comforting that they choose to ignore these small aberrations.
Pirsig in his book Lila wrote that if we don’t see something it does not just imply that it does not exist, but also that maybe we have never been looking for it. Most people have ideas of how the world is and will only see things that confirm to that idea while totally ignoring things that don't. I have made a journey from being an idealist atheist to a skeptic agnostic who wants to be a believer. Ten years ago I would have dismissed that shop lady as being stupid and superstitious. Today I see her as an equal, just distinct from me. Because I understand that I think in a certain way because I have experienced life in a certain way. Had I been living in that town and selling shawls, maybe I would have thought exactly like that lady. I now understand that what genes we inherit is not in our hands and what experiences we will have is to a large extent beyond our control. In claiming credit for a success or blame for a failure this thought should always be at the back of our mind. And also remember that any idea in our brain is just an idea, how much ever passionate we are about it.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Ideology of blame
I am an avid reader of news on the internet. The advantage you have is that you get to read different points of view. So when there is an India-Pakistan conflict, you can find out what people, journalists and politicians on each side are thinking and saying. What I often find, and this is particularly true about the subcontinent, is that people love to blame their politicians for their woes. There is a five hour a day power cut, we say the politicians only care about their votes and not basic needs of the people. We see filth on the street and we say that if only the politicians spent more money and time in building and maintaining infrastructure rather than filling their pockets. I remember that scene from the movie 'Swades' where Shahrukh as Mohan Bhargav gives a preachy dialogue to the villagers as to how we all keep blaming each other for our woes.
But more than it being a sub-continental trait, I think it is very much a part of the human psyche. You see, if you are not responsible for your problems you don't feel guilty and then you don't have to do anything about it. So when there is a bomb blast in Pakistan, they blame India and India does the same thing. The BJP blames the Congress for creating the religion and caste based politics while the Congress blames the BJP for being a communal party. The funny part is that both blame each other of using community based politics, of course supporting different communities. I wish at least one of them found out that the problem was not which community they support, but rather the whole concept of identity based politics based on religion or caste. It is a bigger problem because as long as you seem to represent your community, the community will vote for you, whether you do any work or not. But here again I am blaming the politicians for being myopic, while least realising that he/she is a politician. If we as voters stopped supporting such politicians, they would not exist.
Let me put it this way. A politician is a politician, not because he has strong ideals or is a good administrator or even has a honest character. He (please pardon me for using 'he', using 'he/she' all the time becomes tiring. Hence to make the better gender not feel left out, 'he' from hence forward refers to both 'he' and 'she') is a politician, because he can get votes. I mean ideals, honesty or good administration skills help, but are not essential. I recently read an article on the Pakistani newspaper site 'Dawn' which said that people vote based on emotion and as long as a politician can appeal to people's emotion, he doesn't need to do more.
I am reminded of our home grown Hitler, Mr Narendra Modi. During his election speeches he would openly talk about how bad the minority community was and how ineffective the Congress government has been. Now, if the minority community is bad, the majority community is good. And also if the minority community is to blame for all the problems, the majority community is exempt from any guilt and hence it makes the majority community feel better. I know, I know, that this feel good thing can't last long, and that is why we talk about the 'anti-incumbency factor' where it is assumed that all parties are equally ineffective in dealing with issues, and hence will loose the election after one term. But to top all that majoritarianism, Mr Modi is a good administrator with a clean character. And so people in a big way vote for him. What we have seen in Gujarat is amazing. The Congress and the old BJP politicians find themselves completely incapable of standing up to Mr Modi. But would Mr Modi have been such a formidable leader had he not appealed to the majority's emotions? I doubt it. I know that most of the rhetoric he makes is bullshit and I believe even he knows it. But I guess what he has understood is that bullshit can win you one election but to stay there you have to make people's lives better. I guess BJP should also realize that opportunism by compromising on ideology is not a long term fix. I talk about BJP only because I think Congress is to a large extent beyond redemption. And I don't even want to talk about the Mayawatis, Laloos, Mulayams, Amar Singhs, Karunanidhis, Jayalalithas, Mamata Banerjees, the list is endless. I have better things to do.
But more than it being a sub-continental trait, I think it is very much a part of the human psyche. You see, if you are not responsible for your problems you don't feel guilty and then you don't have to do anything about it. So when there is a bomb blast in Pakistan, they blame India and India does the same thing. The BJP blames the Congress for creating the religion and caste based politics while the Congress blames the BJP for being a communal party. The funny part is that both blame each other of using community based politics, of course supporting different communities. I wish at least one of them found out that the problem was not which community they support, but rather the whole concept of identity based politics based on religion or caste. It is a bigger problem because as long as you seem to represent your community, the community will vote for you, whether you do any work or not. But here again I am blaming the politicians for being myopic, while least realising that he/she is a politician. If we as voters stopped supporting such politicians, they would not exist.
Let me put it this way. A politician is a politician, not because he has strong ideals or is a good administrator or even has a honest character. He (please pardon me for using 'he', using 'he/she' all the time becomes tiring. Hence to make the better gender not feel left out, 'he' from hence forward refers to both 'he' and 'she') is a politician, because he can get votes. I mean ideals, honesty or good administration skills help, but are not essential. I recently read an article on the Pakistani newspaper site 'Dawn' which said that people vote based on emotion and as long as a politician can appeal to people's emotion, he doesn't need to do more.
I am reminded of our home grown Hitler, Mr Narendra Modi. During his election speeches he would openly talk about how bad the minority community was and how ineffective the Congress government has been. Now, if the minority community is bad, the majority community is good. And also if the minority community is to blame for all the problems, the majority community is exempt from any guilt and hence it makes the majority community feel better. I know, I know, that this feel good thing can't last long, and that is why we talk about the 'anti-incumbency factor' where it is assumed that all parties are equally ineffective in dealing with issues, and hence will loose the election after one term. But to top all that majoritarianism, Mr Modi is a good administrator with a clean character. And so people in a big way vote for him. What we have seen in Gujarat is amazing. The Congress and the old BJP politicians find themselves completely incapable of standing up to Mr Modi. But would Mr Modi have been such a formidable leader had he not appealed to the majority's emotions? I doubt it. I know that most of the rhetoric he makes is bullshit and I believe even he knows it. But I guess what he has understood is that bullshit can win you one election but to stay there you have to make people's lives better. I guess BJP should also realize that opportunism by compromising on ideology is not a long term fix. I talk about BJP only because I think Congress is to a large extent beyond redemption. And I don't even want to talk about the Mayawatis, Laloos, Mulayams, Amar Singhs, Karunanidhis, Jayalalithas, Mamata Banerjees, the list is endless. I have better things to do.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Defence of Skepticism
Most debates, arguments, petty quarrels, fights and even wars are not about something we know for certain. I mean, I haven't heard two people debating on whether the sky is blue on a clear day. It is a definite truth, ofcourse we assume that our senses are feeding us the right information, but we dont have any other choice anyway. Most conflicts are about things we can not know for sure. Whether a patent should be granted or not, and if it should be, within what scope. Whether Kashmir should have been a part of India or Pakistan or should it have been independent. If you know that hindus and muslims can live together, kashmir should be a part of India and the whole creation of Pakistan was a waste of time, effort and lives. If on the other hand you know that hindus and muslims can not live together, then kashmir being a muslim majority state should be a part of pakistan and all the muslims of india should migrate to pakistan. It doesn't end all conflicts because we will still be neighbouring countries but atleast we would have solved that particular conflict. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that we can not know. We can only believe.
And belief is not knowledge. And you will not see someone passionate about his/her knowledge, but definitely about his/her beliefs. It is because unless (almost) everyone accepts the belief, it does not complete its transition to knowledge. And if people do not accept my belief, but actually believe in the opposite, then I am wrong. It is this 'If I am right you are wrong, if you are right I am wrong' concept that makes these beliefs a subject of so much passion. No one wants to be wrong. And the problem is that the most important issues in life haven't still made their transition from beliefs to knowledge. And so we keep fighting.
One way out of this, specially on an individual level, is the so called 'self-belief', where a person believes in his/her own thoughts. The philosophy of life here is - 'I am always right, and you are.... I don't care what you are, as long as you don't tell me that I am wrong. If you do then you are wrong'. It is good for people who are not quite bothered about true knowledge. For them feeling good is more important than being right. And they feel good because they believe that they are right. People hardly realise how much of their thought process is guided by their upbringing and if they were brought up somewhere else they would have been equally passionate about a conflicting idea. What if the whole culture they were brought up in is based on a belief, i.e. an assumption. But that is what most 'socially successful' people do. They make assumptions, form beliefs and move on. Because their objective is not knowledge, their objective is the objective of life, to be successful, in other words to be assert their genes. Isn't it all there is to life. In excelling in studies and work, in getting a good (good is a generic term and does not necessarily mean biologic good) partner, and raising successful kids. And what is this success measured by - 'How much they have been able to assert their genes?'.
The other way is for the knowledge seeker. A person who cares less about the assertion of his gene but more about what is truth. That is the path of skepticism. Start by doubting everything. If skillfully done it can shred any philosophical system to pieces. I know that still they have to start in self belief, but then skepticism comes to the rescue when their philosophy is under attack. When people start doubting your beliefs, you start doubting theirs. In this way you are both equally wrong, and in turn equally right. The philosophy is called 'If you are right then I am right, If I am wrong you are wrong'. There will still be conflicts, because at a certain point many of these beliefs will come face to face, especially when what direction should the world take is determined by what you believe in. Then there will be competition between different peoples. The stronger will survive while the weaker will either accept defeat and adopt the winner's beliefs or fight to annihilation.
But even in this, the winner will still remember. That it is his strength that won him the battle, not his beliefs. The stronger gene asserted itself. The weaker perished. Isn't that what has happenned all through history. The most prevalent beliefs are not because they were better, but because the people who believed in them won.
And belief is not knowledge. And you will not see someone passionate about his/her knowledge, but definitely about his/her beliefs. It is because unless (almost) everyone accepts the belief, it does not complete its transition to knowledge. And if people do not accept my belief, but actually believe in the opposite, then I am wrong. It is this 'If I am right you are wrong, if you are right I am wrong' concept that makes these beliefs a subject of so much passion. No one wants to be wrong. And the problem is that the most important issues in life haven't still made their transition from beliefs to knowledge. And so we keep fighting.
One way out of this, specially on an individual level, is the so called 'self-belief', where a person believes in his/her own thoughts. The philosophy of life here is - 'I am always right, and you are.... I don't care what you are, as long as you don't tell me that I am wrong. If you do then you are wrong'. It is good for people who are not quite bothered about true knowledge. For them feeling good is more important than being right. And they feel good because they believe that they are right. People hardly realise how much of their thought process is guided by their upbringing and if they were brought up somewhere else they would have been equally passionate about a conflicting idea. What if the whole culture they were brought up in is based on a belief, i.e. an assumption. But that is what most 'socially successful' people do. They make assumptions, form beliefs and move on. Because their objective is not knowledge, their objective is the objective of life, to be successful, in other words to be assert their genes. Isn't it all there is to life. In excelling in studies and work, in getting a good (good is a generic term and does not necessarily mean biologic good) partner, and raising successful kids. And what is this success measured by - 'How much they have been able to assert their genes?'.
The other way is for the knowledge seeker. A person who cares less about the assertion of his gene but more about what is truth. That is the path of skepticism. Start by doubting everything. If skillfully done it can shred any philosophical system to pieces. I know that still they have to start in self belief, but then skepticism comes to the rescue when their philosophy is under attack. When people start doubting your beliefs, you start doubting theirs. In this way you are both equally wrong, and in turn equally right. The philosophy is called 'If you are right then I am right, If I am wrong you are wrong'. There will still be conflicts, because at a certain point many of these beliefs will come face to face, especially when what direction should the world take is determined by what you believe in. Then there will be competition between different peoples. The stronger will survive while the weaker will either accept defeat and adopt the winner's beliefs or fight to annihilation.
But even in this, the winner will still remember. That it is his strength that won him the battle, not his beliefs. The stronger gene asserted itself. The weaker perished. Isn't that what has happenned all through history. The most prevalent beliefs are not because they were better, but because the people who believed in them won.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Thoughts about nothing
Thoughts about nothing
At times you have a lot to write and at times nothing. This passage is a product of an empty mind with lots of time
on hand. I think at times it is better to start with an empty mind and just write. The beginner's luck might produce
something classic.
Anyway, I never rated my writing skills highly. Lately I have been writing a bit more because of the ideas that seem
worth putting on paper. And that sums up my writing ability - full of ideas, lack of literary skill. As they say if
you are a good writer, you can get away with crappy ideas. Something like those prospective GRE applicants wrote in
college mags, where for every third word you had to use a dictionary. And they thought, it made their material worth
reading.
I think I could have had a couple of publications in the college mag, but what I lacked was confidence. Most
importantly I was confused. I didn't know back then that right and wrong are mere conventions. Cannibalism was
acceptable among Fijians while Jains didn't allow eating Ginger. The source of my confusion and often an inferiority
complex was that these people who so confidently flaunted their ideas on life, religion and anything and anyone,
knew something I didn't. When they flaunted their money, looks, health and anything that they thought they had more
than others, I felt lesser. I guess I am equally guilty for doing the same at times. It is just the inherent
competitiveness in humans. As they say, if there is a characteristic in a living being, it is because it helped it
survive/evolve at a certain stage. Competitiveness, must definitely have a use. It is often observed that there is
more competition between men in mixed gender groups as compared to 'only men' groups. The objective is quite
evident.
Look at all the possibilities of competition in our world. We compete in sports for medals, in school for grades, in
work for promotion, in war for national advantage, in art for fame, in business for money, and in politics for
power. For the winners of competitions there are fat wallets and big egos. What is there for the losers? What is the
ratio of winners to losers? Obviously there are many more losers than winners.
Hence the question to ask is 'Is competition good?'. I would like to take the example of communism, which stood for
collective good. Everybody is content with what they have and hence there is no competition. When there is no
competition, efforts are guided to something which is good for everyone. It seems like such an ideal scenario. I
mean with issues like climate change, poverty and overpopulation we should be directing efforts to eradicate them
rather than just try to beat each other.
Then why did it fail? Ofcourse, the US bled it to slow death. But wasn't it perfect? It did achieve amazing things.
USSR for example became the most powerful country and its people had all the necessities that they needed. They were
scientifically more advanced than any other country in the world. But I guess, it went against the very nature of
the human being. In killing competitiveness, it took away the only motivating factor, the winner takes it all.
Competitiveness has two sides like everything else. The carrot of a win (be it for material benefits or ego boosts)
motivates people to perform better. This is known as a 'healthy competition', where people compete to get better at
what they do, with the objective of the group getting better. Then there is the con side - 'unhealthy competition'
where all we do is to try to outdo each other.
Looking at a democratic setup where politicians do good work for the people so that people vote for them and they
win. I guess that is an ideal democratic scenario. But mostly what happens is politicians undermine each other. So rather than improve their credit they try to spoil the opponent's credit. With the only choice for voters left is 'Which is the better of the two evils?' democracy becomes a mockery.
This is where ethics becomes extremely important. Yes, the objective for a politician is to win elections. But what is the use of winning if the society on the whole is worse off. The politician might become richer and more powerful but he will rule over a low quality populace. So though his power will go up among the people he rules, because the power of the people he rules over goes down, his power goes down.
So now we are talking about ethics. But ethics are based on metaphysics. So we are back to square one. I started with my writing ability and reached metaphysics. It seems where ever I start with, it will take me all the way to
metaphysics. So until the metaphysics is sorted out, I can't define ethics. Until I deifne ethics, the question of
'Is competition good?' is meaningless. So is the democracy vs communism conflict. On it also depends my confidence
over my ideas. But to say the least, I have found out that all metaphysics starts with an assumption. So 'only one'
metaphysics is impossible to determine. Also, the correctness and quality of my writing is subjective and can not be
determined for certain. So any doubts about the correctness of my thoughts need not arise at all. Also any
inferiority complex arising from my inadequecies or 'so called' failures has no basis because what is good is again
subjective.
Hence what is important is to have a personal philosophy which comprises - metaphysics and ethics both backed by
solid reason and at times personal choice. Then there should be an acceptance that my philosophy is the best for me
based knowledge and mental capacity I have at this moment. This justifies different people having different
philosophies and they need not affect you. There should be an openness too for accepting new ideas and testing them.
If found to be correct incorporating them in the philosphy. Also there might be a stage where the new ideas get so
conflicting with the philosophy that I need to start from ground up. At such a time a decision needs to be made
about reworking the philosophy. Ofcourse I dont need to stress that the quality of ideas determines the amount of
effort needed to be put in incorporating them into my philosophy.
So the philosophy might not be able to give an absolute right and wrong answer, but atleast tell me what is best. Formation is an easy thing, implementation is difficult. If I can form such a philosophy and live it to the T I think I would consider it to be a TRUE success.
At times you have a lot to write and at times nothing. This passage is a product of an empty mind with lots of time
on hand. I think at times it is better to start with an empty mind and just write. The beginner's luck might produce
something classic.
Anyway, I never rated my writing skills highly. Lately I have been writing a bit more because of the ideas that seem
worth putting on paper. And that sums up my writing ability - full of ideas, lack of literary skill. As they say if
you are a good writer, you can get away with crappy ideas. Something like those prospective GRE applicants wrote in
college mags, where for every third word you had to use a dictionary. And they thought, it made their material worth
reading.
I think I could have had a couple of publications in the college mag, but what I lacked was confidence. Most
importantly I was confused. I didn't know back then that right and wrong are mere conventions. Cannibalism was
acceptable among Fijians while Jains didn't allow eating Ginger. The source of my confusion and often an inferiority
complex was that these people who so confidently flaunted their ideas on life, religion and anything and anyone,
knew something I didn't. When they flaunted their money, looks, health and anything that they thought they had more
than others, I felt lesser. I guess I am equally guilty for doing the same at times. It is just the inherent
competitiveness in humans. As they say, if there is a characteristic in a living being, it is because it helped it
survive/evolve at a certain stage. Competitiveness, must definitely have a use. It is often observed that there is
more competition between men in mixed gender groups as compared to 'only men' groups. The objective is quite
evident.
Look at all the possibilities of competition in our world. We compete in sports for medals, in school for grades, in
work for promotion, in war for national advantage, in art for fame, in business for money, and in politics for
power. For the winners of competitions there are fat wallets and big egos. What is there for the losers? What is the
ratio of winners to losers? Obviously there are many more losers than winners.
Hence the question to ask is 'Is competition good?'. I would like to take the example of communism, which stood for
collective good. Everybody is content with what they have and hence there is no competition. When there is no
competition, efforts are guided to something which is good for everyone. It seems like such an ideal scenario. I
mean with issues like climate change, poverty and overpopulation we should be directing efforts to eradicate them
rather than just try to beat each other.
Then why did it fail? Ofcourse, the US bled it to slow death. But wasn't it perfect? It did achieve amazing things.
USSR for example became the most powerful country and its people had all the necessities that they needed. They were
scientifically more advanced than any other country in the world. But I guess, it went against the very nature of
the human being. In killing competitiveness, it took away the only motivating factor, the winner takes it all.
Competitiveness has two sides like everything else. The carrot of a win (be it for material benefits or ego boosts)
motivates people to perform better. This is known as a 'healthy competition', where people compete to get better at
what they do, with the objective of the group getting better. Then there is the con side - 'unhealthy competition'
where all we do is to try to outdo each other.
Looking at a democratic setup where politicians do good work for the people so that people vote for them and they
win. I guess that is an ideal democratic scenario. But mostly what happens is politicians undermine each other. So rather than improve their credit they try to spoil the opponent's credit. With the only choice for voters left is 'Which is the better of the two evils?' democracy becomes a mockery.
This is where ethics becomes extremely important. Yes, the objective for a politician is to win elections. But what is the use of winning if the society on the whole is worse off. The politician might become richer and more powerful but he will rule over a low quality populace. So though his power will go up among the people he rules, because the power of the people he rules over goes down, his power goes down.
So now we are talking about ethics. But ethics are based on metaphysics. So we are back to square one. I started with my writing ability and reached metaphysics. It seems where ever I start with, it will take me all the way to
metaphysics. So until the metaphysics is sorted out, I can't define ethics. Until I deifne ethics, the question of
'Is competition good?' is meaningless. So is the democracy vs communism conflict. On it also depends my confidence
over my ideas. But to say the least, I have found out that all metaphysics starts with an assumption. So 'only one'
metaphysics is impossible to determine. Also, the correctness and quality of my writing is subjective and can not be
determined for certain. So any doubts about the correctness of my thoughts need not arise at all. Also any
inferiority complex arising from my inadequecies or 'so called' failures has no basis because what is good is again
subjective.
Hence what is important is to have a personal philosophy which comprises - metaphysics and ethics both backed by
solid reason and at times personal choice. Then there should be an acceptance that my philosophy is the best for me
based knowledge and mental capacity I have at this moment. This justifies different people having different
philosophies and they need not affect you. There should be an openness too for accepting new ideas and testing them.
If found to be correct incorporating them in the philosphy. Also there might be a stage where the new ideas get so
conflicting with the philosophy that I need to start from ground up. At such a time a decision needs to be made
about reworking the philosophy. Ofcourse I dont need to stress that the quality of ideas determines the amount of
effort needed to be put in incorporating them into my philosophy.
So the philosophy might not be able to give an absolute right and wrong answer, but atleast tell me what is best. Formation is an easy thing, implementation is difficult. If I can form such a philosophy and live it to the T I think I would consider it to be a TRUE success.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Should knowledge succumb to spirituality?
There was something wrong with the 'Vedanta' I was learning. I knew it, just what didn't come to me until yesterday. It was the inconcievability of the 'Brahman' - which is defined as everything - the cosmic entity. The argument was that consciousness and knowledge are also a part of the Brahman. But so is a thought a part of a human and contains within itself the consciousness and knowledge of the human and itself too.
The reason was that the word 'inconceivable' sounded defeatist and also that it killed human curiosity. It said that all science and all knowledge was a lie and the truth could be gained by only spiritual means. And this I find objectionable. Not because I feel it is conceivable, I don't know about that, but because I find it goes agains my nature.
Everyone has a philosophy. Even the auto driver who writes at the back of his auto 'Meri chalti hai to teri kyon jalti hai?'. That's his philosphy - fight it out and if you are doing well show it. The objective is to find the right philosophy for oneself. And live by it, put it out in the open. May the best philosophy survive. In a dynamic world even Bangladesh can beat Australia, even if it might seem most impossible.
On a different tangent controlling evolution is one big mistake. Allow it a dynamic growth.
The reason was that the word 'inconceivable' sounded defeatist and also that it killed human curiosity. It said that all science and all knowledge was a lie and the truth could be gained by only spiritual means. And this I find objectionable. Not because I feel it is conceivable, I don't know about that, but because I find it goes agains my nature.
Everyone has a philosophy. Even the auto driver who writes at the back of his auto 'Meri chalti hai to teri kyon jalti hai?'. That's his philosphy - fight it out and if you are doing well show it. The objective is to find the right philosophy for oneself. And live by it, put it out in the open. May the best philosophy survive. In a dynamic world even Bangladesh can beat Australia, even if it might seem most impossible.
On a different tangent controlling evolution is one big mistake. Allow it a dynamic growth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
