There is a contradiction in wanting to be perfectly secure in a universe whose very nature is momentariness and fluidity. But the contradiction lies a little deeper than the mere conflict between the desire for security and the fact of change. If I want to be secure, that is, protected from the flux of life, I am wanting to be separate from life. Yet it is this very sense of separateness which makes me feel insecure. To be secure means to isolate and fortify the “I,” but it is just the feeling of being an isolated “I” which makes me feel lonely and afraid. In other words, the more security I can get, the more I shall want.

To put it still more plainly: the desire for security and the feeling of insecurity are the same thing. To hold your breath is to lose your breath. A society based on the quest for security is nothing but a breath-retention contest in which everyone is as taut as a drum and as purple as a beet.

– Allan Watts

Paradise

Somewhere far, far away
Cloaked behind mountains and valleys
Even beyond seas where serpents stay

Lies my paradise
Which beaches washed golden by the sea
And shores lined with old books sented of spice
Lies my paradise basking lustily by the sea

With paths forged by Goethe and Shakesphere
The sweet draft, light and soft,
Where everything is real, love, bravery, fear and tear
And the sweet draft bears he memory through my land
Eternally, gently, both light and soft

And the music of my land welcoming every intruder
Phoenixes singing chopin and beethoven
O come! O come! Visit where thought is broader
O come! O come to the land of thinking men

Somewhere far, far away
Cloaked behind mountains and valleys
Even beyond seas where serpents stay

Lies my paradise
Borne fondly in my head
Built with yearning for wisdom and wit
Come share my only paradise.

Another musing

The following is a diary entry of mine that I wrote after I saw things happen to most of my friends. It is mostly unedited, save for the spellings.

“Memento Mori” is Latin for “Remember (that you have) to die”.

One might talk of love and of relations endlessly and have a mind numbing toil of the heart. One might look at every time they have been looked over and count holes in their hearts, like cigarette buds on paper.

One might fret, cry, scream, laugh, smile, cherish, adore and hate. But I think to understand all of this one has to treat themselves as a system, and as no system can fully comprehend itself in the same frame, one has to look at it from the meta level.

But in the meta level we are forced to ask “What is life?” and “Who am I?“. Both of these are questions which many would like answered but I claim to hold no answer to these. But I do hold that life is inherently a harmonious dichotomy. Life, then, becomes an interconnected flow of emotions and energy all which is conserved.

Life too is part of a contrary dichotomy, it’s other half being death. So, like in all connected things, it is natural to think that the concept of death might have answers and clues to the nature of life.

Memento Mori,  so that all unwanted unused things fall to the wayside.

Memento Mori, because your time is limited.

Memento Mori, because you will be forgotten.

Memento Mori, because one facing death must be brave enough to embrace it for the end it presents, and like in all great endings one must have the strength to look back and find the journey the joy.

So, let love walk through your heart, embrace it for it’s sense of immortality, handle it well for it is a great binding force.

Assault and Apathy

It is surprising how women who come out into the society and tell people their experience with sexual assault are either quickly dismissed as liars or face huge amounts of criticism over it. These women are undergoing a process of healing from an incident that can shake them to their roots, emotionally, and it seeps into many aspects of life. Any romantic relationship in the future will be haunted by this incident, there will be many things in day to day life that remind one of this incident. These crimes are worst when they are done by people that the victims trust and mostly this is the case and this is exactly when coming out is even harder. These people need support and understanding, not criticism.

“I was ready to admit to the ways being sexually assaulted has shaped my sense of self as a woman entering adulthood, compromised my emotional security, and haunted me even during the most joyful periods of my life…Since coming out as a survivor I have gone from an intellectual sense of the ways in which victims are doubted and debased to a bone-deep understanding of this reality.” – Lena Dunham

It has been the case with Lena Dunham, Madonna and many other entertainers who are looked at merely as entertainment even beyond their areas of work. Many also consider each of them as limelight hogger who would do anything to remain there, thereby taking away their power to be heard when they have real issues that need to be understood. Particularly, because these people are famous the receive a lot more backlash as the ones who are actually considerate of what happened to them, choose to remain silent and not support the person.

Victims are now preparing to face attack on them for speaking up about the injustice done to them before they speak up. They know they are going to blamed because someone attacked them and that they are going to be treated to misogynistic comments, disbelieved and have their privacy violated by people who simply want to keep knowing more and find it all very entertaining. I find it very hard believe that the society works so counter-intuitively. Logic and reason suggest that both the persons involved must be investigated with due respect to the delicacy of the situation should the accused be innocent and with due care to the victim for they might be needing a lot of emotional support and reassurance. But such precautions are rarely taken and the authorities involved are either slacking off or are too rash.

There is also, noticeably, much resistance to victims speaking out in public. It is almost as if the society wants to move on without knowing such details about itself, unless it is portrayed as high-profile case on television where the condition of the victim are rarely considered. But to know such things are commonplace is fundamental to our society so that it can move forward and improve. These flaws in our society can point direction and can help if taken well. And directions are absolutely necessary for growth. After all, as Edward Abbey said, Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.

Sexual assault is now, gender neutral, many men and boys have been abused too. Given the situation and the apathy with which we react to the voice of the victims, one only sees the flaws that the society does not want to see, blatantly and without regret.

Politics and Science

The Greek philosopher Aristotle in Nicomecan Ethics, Book 10 said that in politics one must not expect the same rigor as in the sciences, because much of politics is subject to debate, opinions and uncertainty.

But here, from Aristotle, I beg to differ. The sciences have always dealt with approximations and theories which have built with opinions and experimentation. The scientific method is but a systematic means of testing a conceived idea. The idea is then accepted as truth, if other people under the same conditions can arrive at the same result (reproducibility) and if the error involved is minimal.

Physics attempts to model the interactions in the real world at least at a macroscopic level. Even if we take the famous Newton’s laws*, they are simply an approximation of how moving objects function. The objects are reduced to mere points and all forces on it are attributed to be acting on the center of gravity. This approximation works well, the results of the calculation closely approach the actual values. To accurately describe the functioning of all objects we need an accurate model of the world and it is very well known that such a thing has never been achieved.

In mathematics we take another creation of Newton’s, Calculus which is extensively used in other sciences. Since calculus is very vast, I shall take the example of integration. Simply put, we use integration to find the area under the graph of a positive function. To do this we divide the area under the graph into various rectangle and add their areas up.

As shown in the figure, there is a lot of error involved in this, to reduce the error we  increase the number of rectangles and decrease their breath. The result approaches the actual value of the area under the graph of a function.

Many more examples can be found in all the different branches of the sciences. Thus, we come to see that mathematics or physics or any other science is precise only in theory and entails a lot of ‘reasonable’ assumptions, approximations and other errors when actually applied to real life situations. Similar things can be said about political science. It, like it’s more ‘rigorous’ counterparts, arrives at a conclusion through logic and thought. It is open to debate, just like the sciences, which have an elaborate system of publishing articles and many people testing them for validity and then agreeing upon them, to establish a theorem. In political science, the debate is publicly known as they deal directly with society, but it too has various people with various ideas arrived upon logically with some assumptions and approximations. The ways of experimentation may differ, but both the sciences have the same error when dealing with real life. And thus, when we take all this into consideration, one can say that the rigor in political theory is as fundamental to it as it is to the sciences.

 

*Dear physicists, I have taken Newton’s laws as an example even though there have been other theories developed which give better results, as they are more famous and many people have come to understand them and their assumptions. If this doesn’t convince you, I urge you consider the example of the flow of a river. Though it is consistent at all points, it is not rigorously describable.

Love and deception

Sometimes we lose those we love, sometimes we are deceived by love, sometimes we wish there was love where none exists. At all these times we only grieve that which we have loved and deceived by love. We remain entangled in a lust between fear and desire for one conversation to end the deception, birthing anger upon ourselves for what we yielded to when we deceived. And tonight when I watch the moon, I shall see the pain of those deceived by love, for they are the saddest and their tears are seen by none but the moon.

What is it to be human?

To be human, being human. They all create vivid images in our heads, each probably different and unique in it’s own respect. But like each of us who are both human and distinct, all of these ideas must have a string of uniformity running through them which would them be the essence of what it is to lead this human life.

To err is human, To feel is human, to desire is human, Humanity is loving, humans hate, to be human is to be empathetic, humans lie, humans kill. But they are all human, different to extents that makes one doubt the existence of the answer to this question. But all of these people look good in their own eyes. But a lot pf these pople also want to be somthing else. They sometimes want to emulated everything from someones personality to attitude, and consider themselves the minor. We might then think that the answer must be reduced to mere existence, but no, then we could have as well been a rock or a molecule, instead of this impossibly constrained biological form.

Humans build, innovate create, change, adapt, love, hate, both sometimes. Humans grow. Every human can testify to satisfaction brought in us by growth. They grow, they justify things in their past to themselves, they seek answers and they find them in anything ranging from people to books. We could then explain everything a human and the final end and what the end does to him. We could even explain this question, by my own humanness.

In every philosophy that has been so far we have always had to push, learn, fight and be strong. All of these are but means to attain the end, paced growth. Of course every growth must have a purpose and direction, each direction maybe different, this is the root of all the diversity that one sees. The mind does not stop as the long the heart keeps beating. And hence grows and thinks with great zest.

Thus to be human is simple. It is to grow. And that causes happiness in all hearts.

I seem to understand blogging…

Blogging is new to me. I had not known the feeling of unknown people understanding and appreciating my thoughts and my words. Naturally enough, I wanted more and more people to do the same. And instantly, my mind went to all this awesome information I knew of I could provide. It would be complete in every aspect. People could come here and learn! What a great idea! Only, it wasn’t. It was a stupid idea. For two major reasons

1) I would have not been adding anything new. It would have just been a very handicapped, biased, incomplete and inaccurate version of Wikipedia.

2) I would not be adding my thoughts. My ideas. Anyone can go anywhere and find information. It’s not information I want them to read, I want them to understand me. Which is the purpose of blogging. To be heard.

I guess, this is the crowning victory for the Internet. A neat showcase of how liberty and equality can coexist, and how such an existence is strong, progressive and innately dependent on differences.

And yes, giving mere information without credit would not just amount to plagiarism, however innocent the intent may be and defeat the entire idea of blogging.

The inherent randomness of life

If life is a bunch of random events, I have to say, I’ve had an incredible experience, though not uncommon, meaningful and precious. If life is simply so random, does one always have to be right? Or happy? Or anything? Would not such inherent consistency itself be an anomaly? When truth and reality are themselves mere manifestations of perspective, what then, is right and wrong? What then is morality?

I do no believe one should go against the fundamental laws of nature, they are far reaching, complex and closest to the definition of the inexistent god. Now, if there is no such law, then the fundamental nature of nature itself becomes random. Considering that either the laws are too complex to comprehend or they do not exisit, one accept the inherent randomness in their life, as we all are natural beings. Hence, life is random and us as natural beings, our feelings, thoughts, emotions etc. are random too.

Human nature on the other hand has this curious tendency to grapple with all this randomness and find some consistency, thereby creating hopes which eventually leads to sadness. This grappling arises from our priced tendency to see patterns in things or make sense of things and fear of not understanding. Thus, we make our patterns from other random lives and try to extinguish our randomness using that, calling these ‘logical’ solutions. But it is not logical to fight so much for unpleasantness, such a tendency would be masochistic. Rather if one can understand their humanness and the inherent randomness in life, one may see the simplistic grandeur with which things work like oiled machinery.

On Anarchy and Atheism

I believe anarchism like atheism will set itself strongly over time. Initially, atheism was rare, commonly confused with immorality. We even have ridiculed such as “godless men” (the communists were called godless sometime around 1950, though the cries of the same are still to be found in society). The stance that god doesn’t exist was considered immoral and dangerous, even impossible. Though, now, the number of such people have increased, with it, the truth about atheistic beliefs has become accessible to more theist and polytheists.

Now, we have anarchism which also seems to go against current intuition and logic, though when understood seems viable, logical and more human. The number of people who will embrace it will increase albeit slowly, with education, which is so central to our society for a good life.

In a society of atheists, religion has no power, in a society of anarchists, a government can have no power. If there is a nation with people, all against domination, time, maybe even numbers and surely the few who want power will be rendered powerless as a government only holds up as long as the population supports it.

Now, we see religion as a menace and even consider it illogical and obsolete and as an eventuality it will be wiped out. The same may happen for the government and the current form of society Religion will fade to nothing more than ink without revolution, the same may happen to the government. And both will probably fade from there even quicker.