Loss and gain

If I go back and look at my earliest posts from 6, 7 years ago, I notice a distinctly angry undertone in them. It is often the anger of a moralist and, by simple extension, the anger of a hypocritical and insecure person (my point being that all moralists are hypocrites). At some point I realized, perhaps not as clearly as I do now, the idiocy of my own views from that time and I tried to compensate for them by trying to see more love and beauty than I frankly could ever have stomached. Freewheeling compassion, love, empathy, happiness, joy, and sense of community are just not my cup of tea and I look at people who evince such emotions with the same skeptical eye that I use to look at used car salesmen. Such emotions are palatable to me only in small and measured doses and only in a very personal and quiet sort of context. So my effort at trying to be more compassionate on this blog turned out to be another kind of failure and I have again seen myself move, of late, towards a more negative tone. I think this time the negative tone is here to stay as it is a deep and honest reaction against some fundamental aspects of the times that we live in.

The answer to the question 'what is valuable' differs from person and person and also on what level it is being asked. On the level of a society the answer may be a utilitarian one: more happiness to most. On the level of an individual the answer will often be more selfish and will also be more flamboyant and diverse. Who can say that the value "more happiness to most" is not a good one? It is very hard to argue against until one sees it as being possible only as a result of a larger struggle, one between liberty and equality, between individuality and homogenization, between humanity and bureaucratization. I value the benefits of society but I wish they didn't come at such a grave cost to the I. And I almost wish that this was an earlier time, one where the tools of homogenization were not as sophisticated as they have become now, one were individuals were not reduced to market entities nearly to the extent that they are now, one where dehumanization wasn't as rampant as it is currently. Of course the prototypical product of the internet age - a person who appears light on depth and deep on superficial thought, a herd follower through and through, a person brought up on a steady dose of facebook likes, reddit upvotes, and instagram whatevers, a person who must not be taken seriously until he/she emerges from behind the shadows and owns up to his/her views and argues on behalf of them - will find it easy, almost instinctive to ridicule my yearning. What have we gained as a society and what have we lost and is it all really worth it? It's a hard question, one which is impossible to answer with any conviction now. But the answer will become clearer in the coming decades. I believe that the dehumanization project will become transparent enough for some of us to wonder as to why we bothered in the first place. And for some of us to then be confident in exclaiming that what's lost is incredibly more valuable than what's gained. We used to worry about bringing up our kids with reasonable economic and social capital, with his/her own proper sense of his/her own place in the world. This will not be an issue in the future, at least not in the same sense as the question itself will disappear. Every human aberration will be explained away through generic labels, mechanical descriptions, cured away through red, blue, and green pills, surveilled and converted into streams of data, stored, stashed away in giant monolithic buildings somewhere in the Nevada desert. All philosophical digressions will be drowned mercilessly by the collective hivemind of the ultraconnected society.

We will, in summary, have gained eternal sleep at the cost of our humanity.

If I were to think of describing civilization, by which I really mean society, in a pithy little sentence, I think I'd describe it as an essential compromise that humans have to make in order to rein in the strong and facilitate the survival of the weak. For the strong it is unfortunate and for the weak it is the only way out. For those who are so inclined it may be interesting to try to see it from different angles, and to try to peel away its many sly machinations. At its very heart there is only one goal for any civilization: the survival of its own ideas and its own ways of doing things at the cost, if necessary, of individuals and their possibly inconvenient inclinations. The ideas of a society do change but these changes are glacial and are never willed by those who hold the highest stakes in the current scheme of things. The ones who hold the highest stakes hold them through power both political and economic and neither of these powers is ever in the hands of the masses despite what appearances might suggest. There are two main things desired of the masses: 1. to obsess themselves only with trivialities and 2. to have pride, faith, respect and other similar bullshit emotions when they think about the system that they have. Religion used to play the role of the agent at which human obsession could be safely directed but it has, in the modern world, been replaced by materialism and looking at the inanity of the modern human being, I think the latter is a far more potent opium than the former ever was. The modern human is a shabby and useless specimen, merely a tool in the hands of a digital and heartless machinery. Pride, faith, and respect are cultivated indirectly and the training begins at home when one is told to respect our elders (and external authority by extension.) I have never understood the concept of respect by itself and nobody that I have asked has ever been able to provide me with a coherent, let alone convincing explanation of what it is. I don't know what it means and, therefore, I don't know who deserves it. I most certainly cannot fathom how it can be automatically deserved. And yet we are all told to bow in front of various authorities all our lives, not because it would be a prudent thing to do in a master-slave relationship which is the way it really is, but because the expectation is that we would find something inherently good and worthy about it. I think we as individuals would do well to cultivate a little more contempt. Contempt for the intelligence of authorities and contempt also for our fellow human being both young and old. Neither is as intelligent, prudent, or innocent as it seems.

from Berlin's Historical Inevitability

A not dissimilar philosophy is, it seems to me, to be found in the writings of Tolstoy and other pessimists and quietists, both religious and irreligious. For these, particularly the most conservative among them, life is a stream moving in a given direction, or perhaps a tideless ocean stirred by occasional breezes. The number of factors which cause it to be as it is, is very great, but we know only very few of them. To seek to alter things radically in terms of our knowledge is therefore unrealistic, often to the point of absurdity. We cannot resist the central current, for they are much stronger than we, we can only tack, only trip to the winds and avoid collisions with the great fixed institutions of our world, its physical and biological laws, and the great human establishments with their roots deep in the past - the empires, the Churches, the settled beliefs and habits of mankind. For if we resist these, our small craft will be sunk, and we shall lose our lives to no purpose. Wisdom lies in avoiding situations where we may capsize, in using the winds that blow as skilfully as we can, so that we may last at any rate our own time, preserve the heritage of the past, and not hurry towards a future which will come soon enough, and may be darker even than the gloomy present. On this view it is the human predicament - the disproportion between our vast designs and our feeble means - that is responsible for much of the suffering and injustice of the world. Without help, without divine grace, or one or other form of divine intervention, we shall not, in any case, succeed. Let us then be tolerant and charitable and understanding, and avoid the folly of accusation and counter-accusation which will expose us to the laughter or pity of later generations. Let us seek to discern what we can - some dim outline of a pattern - in the shadows of the past, for even so much is surely difficult enough.

- Isaiah Berlin in Historical Inevitability commenting upon the human predicament as seen by Tolstoy and others. Berlin's point is to clarify one of the set of thoughts through which value judgment and ultimately personal responsibility can be dissolved. I found this passage succinct, illuminating, and a brilliant distillation of what I find to be my own views, continuously in flux.

I have a complicated relationship with science and tech on one side and religion and intuition on the other. I find none of the ease with which people seem to be able to belong to one camp or the other feeling uncomfortable, as I do, at the abject surrender of humanity and individuality which both sides demand as the price of entry into their communities. Intuition had its time which can be said to be past now and we saw during that time its monstrous transformation into a system of monolithic and absolute dictum, ruling the general populace with a hand at once heavy and cruel. We saw it transform into a hideous excuse for controlling the lives of other people in this time and we saw the deadening of the romance which lies at the heart of religion, its ossification into a soulless, pointless, and mediocre set of rules and regulations. When the time came this idiotic and hollowed out framework crumbled under the spirit of the age, it surrendered its limited acuity against the skeptical attitude of the various sciences. And now we have come full circle. Science, and its bastard child which goes by the name of tech, isn't as idiotic as the logic of organized religions but its followers certainly compete very well in the area of intellectual incompetence. For they have again thrown in their lot with an agency they do not understand very well.

At this point it is clear to me that the relentless march of science will serve only to increase the misery of most in this world. In material terms it will drive most people out of a means to earn a reasonable living, eliminating in the process the dignity which humans find in doing a hard day's labor and creating something out of the rough materials of life. This is already seen to be increasingly true in many many areas. On the spiritual front it will hollow out the humans of their humanity, reducing them to atomistic and simplistic entities useful only to the extent where an explanation of the impersonal world is sought. Like leaves, snails, and dust. Not only will it reduce the worth of humans in the context of universal explanations, it will also reduce their worth in their own eyes. In the absence of true humanity, unchecked science will, and has already begun to, reduce humans, their cognition, and their total attention to mere market activities. To notice the modern urban human is to notice a remarkable likeness to a soulless robot, exactly as dead and exactly as mundane.

I ultimately disagree with Berlin's hypothesis that there is no such thing as the inevitability of history. I think there is and the world as we find now could not have been otherwise, or at least would have reached the same stage at an earlier or later time . All that one can do is try to control the short range flows but the long range effects seem to have a force of their own. I think in this sense there is an inevitability in the passing of the baton from religion to science, in the passing of idiocy as well. I'm curious to see the next moves.

V Day

This is something new on this forum. Here are some thoughts of mine on the 14th of Feb, on the significance of this day for me. In short I don't care at all about it and cannot understand what the fuss is about. I don't necessarily discount the essential emotions to which it refers, although I do think that we make too much of them. I do, however, have severe reservations against the commercial nature of it and against the general expectations which come with it.

Let's begin with the latter and destroy some fake romantic ideas here. This is yet another day which has been designed so that you will be subconsciously compelled to buy shit. Like Christmas, new year's, mother's day, friendship day, this is just another day to squeeze out a little more from your wallets. The feeling behind it, although may be seen as noble by itself, nevertheless merely ends up getting cynically used up by the market forces. Since almost everybody around you is consumed by the madness of valentine's day, you feel compelled to join in as well. The social expectations end up forcing you to do things that you might not have done by yourself. But there is a very high probability that that is your entire life anyway so I won't dwell upon it too much.

Then comes my other objection to this special day but before I state my objection I should mention the following. I think in life it is important to strive to be happy and one of the sure shot ways of successfully going about it is finding a well adjusted human being, with whom one has some things in common, as a companion. And on finding such a person, compromising, if need be, on pretty much all other expectations because they are not important. The current dating climate fails these simple rules on two accounts. First, a distinct lack of well adjusted human beings in society. It seems that nutcases are running wild crashing into other nutcases in bars and on dating websites and apps (like chickens running around with their heads cut off; if you've seen one you'd understand the apt and inspired comparison). Second, the culture of compromising, settling for what one has, and not always being in search of something better, is slowly dying away with the passing of a generation which didn't just sit around on its ass over-analyzing its love life. Nutcases + greed, that's the perfect recipe for long term dissatisfaction. And this day plays very well on these two shortcomings of the modern society. This day helps to create a vile and devious fiction, that one's love life is extremely important. This day is the distillation of Sex in the City kind of message and idiots get easily taken in by it. But then that's the main purpose of idiots in this world anyway, to get taken in by various fictions.

I ultimately have a soft corner for a certain mix of feelings that one might have towards another person but it is most definitely a mix of feelings. In that mix lies romantic attraction but it is not the most important one. I think respect is equally, if not more, important. Respect not in some vague charitable sense but respect earned properly and honestly through the manifestation of some concrete qualities. So while one can be romantically attracted to all sorts of people of questionable worth, the requirement of respect serves to separate the melody from the noise, the worthy from the riff-raff. In fact, the all too many stories of the various travails of people hopelessly in love fills my heart not with any sympathy for them but with contempt. Pure love, they say, is blind and they are right. It is also contemptible and thoroughly deserving of the misery it so often inspires. Inasmuch as Valentine's day might celebrate this balanced, restrained, and stable vision of happiness and love, I will support it. I don't think it does though.

Morbidity of Facebook

There is much that is ghastly about social media in general and Facebook in particular but the one aspect which really gives me the cancer is how happy everybody is there. There is a certain kind of happy person who is thoroughly insufferable. One who is never angry or sad or mean. And it seems everybody on Facebook is that insufferable person. There was a time when the number of people whom I had not unfollowed was still in the double digits but that was a time of great personal agony for me. I was continuously swamped with ridiculous photos of people trying to one up each other in a surreal contest of idiocy. Lovingly shot photos of delicately arranged food, adrenaline fueled selfies of people jumping off of airplanes, a relentless barrage of mediocre self-promotion, people in various stages of inebriation among large groups of friends with smiles too wide and teeth too white, lukewarm brain droppings of questionable merit posed in sentences which try to make the thought appear deeper than it really is, a general presence of too much communality and too little individuality. And the final issue is not accidental. Individuality must suffer when the primary purpose of one's presence is to fit in. When I meet people in the real world I can still see in them that other half of the human nature which has been suppressed so brutally in social media. The part that is slightly devious and politically incorrect and vile. Combined with the courage to accept this vileness as one's own, I see a real human being in them with real emotions and real worth. On the other hand what does one find on social media? If the media is anonymous (reddit) then we find people who behave like uncivilized animals and if the media is not anonymous (facebook) we find  useless robots who are only too eager to be nice and well meaning. They acknowledge other robots of their kind with similar expressions of fake happiness and lukewarm ideas which are at just the right temperature to not be offensive to anybody. Mildly pleasing and ultimately well meaning always and, therefore, absolutely worthless. There's no meaningful concept of light in the absence of the idea of dark and my primary beef with social interaction of the kind that I see on Facebook is that the black has been removed from the personalities of its robotic denizens. I can't remember the last time anybody posted about being angry or sad or hopeless. It would be a depressing world where these emotions were removed like they seem to have been online. After all, much of the beauty that humans have created over their history in the form of music, painting, poetry, and literature is based not on happiness but on sadness. But I think we are entering just such a world where these valuable emotions are being pushed under the rug, if not consciously then subconsciously, and our online discourse is as much a symptom of this malaise as a driving force.

Well I don't face the personal agony I described above anymore when I visit Facebook. Looks like the only people I haven't unfollowed are those who are too cynical to post anything and/or have a real life. Just like me. I rather prefer the real world and I still take solace in the fact that in the real world people can still snap out of their online morbidity after a little poking. And that they can still share a human moment together where they reveal themselves, like I do, to be slightly but refreshingly unsympathetic, vile, askew, hopeless, and angry.

The Impudence of Naivety

Indeed, there is nothing more vexing, for instance, than to be rich, of respectable family, of decent appearance, of rather good education, not stupid, even kind, and at the same time to have no talent, no particularity, no oddity even, not a single idea of one's own , to be decidedly "like everybody else." There is wealth, but not a Rothschild's; an honorable family, but which has never distinguished itself in any way; a decent appearance, but very little expression; a proper education, but without knowing what to apply it to; there is intelligence, but with no ideas of one's own; there's a heart, but with no magnanimity etc. etc., in all respects. There are a great many such people in the world and even far more than it seems; they are divided, as all people are, into two main categories: one limited, the other "much cleverer." The first are happier. For the limited "usual" man, for instance, there is nothing easier than to imagine himself an unusual and original man and to revel in it without any hesitation. As soon as some of our young ladies cut their hair, put on blue spectacles, and called themselves nihilists, they became convinced at once that, having put on the spectacles, they immediately began to have their own "convictions." As soon as a man feels in his heart just a drop of some sort of generally human and kindly feeling for something or other, he immediately becomes convinced that no one else feels as he does, that he is in the forefront of general development. As soon as a man takes some thought or other at its word or reads a little page of something without beginning or end, he believes at once that these are "his own thoughts" and were conceived in his own brain. The impudence of naivety, if one may put it so, goes so far in such cases as to be astonishing; all this is incredible, but one meets with it constantly. This impudence of naivety, this stupid man's unquestioningness of himself and his talent, is excellently portrayed by Gogol in the astonishing type of Lieutenant Pirogov...

-From The Idiot (Dostoevsky)

Jog on

I came across an article on Nytimes about some new study which has found that the optimal time that one must jog in order to live a long life is lesser than one might expect. While women in yoga pants and bros in shorts have been sacrificing themselves at the altar of fitness for tens of hours every week, it turns out they only need to do so for around 2 and a half hours. Being a reasonable person, this new study is extremely concerning to me. I fear that if these people end up taking the advice of the article seriously, they'll  hang around in this world longer than now. Are we as a society okay with such a grave repercussion? I mean, what are these people doing in this world anyway? They take in the energy which has been laboriously created by plants and animals over months and years and they immediately convert it to waste heat. No value addition whatsoever. They are the bluntest of examples of the futility of human life. There is no shorter route from order to disorder than these people. The second law of thermodynamics is being accelerated by them.

There was a short amount of time when I ran but I wised up soon enough. I hated it which is what I think is the predominant feeling of most who run in order not to get fat. I figured that in life I'll make a bargain. I'd rather chill out till the age of 60 and die (if not running does shorten my life) than choose to live miserably every day till the age of 85. This is why I haven't jumped on the many bandwagons that these health nuts tend to do. And although I don't smoke, I have respect for an honest and proud smoker. Not for one of those ridiculous people who smokes those e-cigarettes but those who smoke the real stuff. I'm sure they love it and the most dedicated of them have probably made a similar bargain in life. A bargain that has never been more clearly explained than by the great Bill Hicks himself. I really hope that if this study is right (I have my doubts, I mean what is an exercise scientist anyway?) then it gets ignored by these joggers. For the greater good.

Good and Bad

It's going to be ten years this August since I moved to the US and I think this is a respectable amount of time in which to begin understanding the psyche of a culture. I believe that as an essential outsider I have naturally had better tools to evaluate this culture than a person who was born and brought up within it. I have always had a reference point with which to compare, and a supremely good one at that in the form of the Indian culture. I don't mean to say that the Indian culture is perfect, or even very good, but it acts as a nice counterpoint to the American one by virtue of being fundamentally different. If I were to think about what is one thing which is great about the American culture and what is one thing that is ridiculous, what would the answer be?

I think the greatest thing about this culture is the freedom to choose and the fact that at their very hearts people here do take that as a sacred principle. This freedom is almost always dormant and hidden away but it is ultimately there. One can choose and one will not face the kind of social, economic, or political repercussions that they might in other places. On the scale of the severity of repercussions, I think the middle eastern countries, along with China and Russia, lie at the bottom, with Asian countries like India, and Latin American countries somewhere in the middle, European countries with Australia and Canada above them and ultimately a distant second to the US. It might appear that countries like Canada are better than the US in this regard but that would be a mistake in judgment as they derive their sense of freedom essentially from the British idea and the British idea is not nearly as free as the American one. One example is the existence and strict enforcement of the first amendment in the US whose analogue surprisingly doesn't exist in Britain. I think it is safe to say that the this culture, more than any other culture, respects individual freedom and tolerates dissenting opinion.

The worst thing about this culture also emerges from the freedom it provides. At the very basic level it is an obsessive inward looking tendency and I think it is made possible because the culture tolerates an infinity of narratives, some of them naturally being more supportive of a particular kind of malaise. There is an obsession with the self and the ridiculous idea that I matter and that my issues are important. I never found, and still do not find, this obsession in India nearly to the extent that I find it here. In India people are, in general, in much worse situations but they have no other option but to face life and to get on with it. But in the US I find whole industries devoted to legitimizing and feeding the issues of people with regard to their own self. I don't mean to trivialize the real issues which some people, I am sure, face but on their coattails ride entire hoards of people who obsess about their physical, economic, spiritual, and sexual well-being and who, had they been in a less prosperous country, would have merely been told to stop whining and being a general pest. I think this obsession has deeper roots. It emerges from a fundamental emptiness of meaning, of purpose, of real relationships, of the sense of one's place in this world, and, more importantly, from an intense reluctance to face the dim truth with honesty. In this instance India is a brilliant demonstration of the capital T truth, that the I doesn't matter and the world will hum along nicely enough without bothering about the I.

Science as the new God

There are many good things one can say about the effects of a century of science on life in general, including a better standard of living on average, longer lifespans, perhaps even peace between nations. However, there is one aspect of it against which reasonable arguments can be made. The scientific attitude is supposed to be one of deep skepticism and relentless doubt but science itself has inculcated in the general masses, curiously enough, an utter morbidity of thought, a complete surrender of skepticism. It has ushered in a whole generation which celebrates everything it associates with science with the exact same devotion as is expected of a religious person. Science has silenced debate even in areas where its grip is still too weak and its mad worship has completely undermined such fruitful activities as the liberal arts. It has made the idea of a well rounded human being who can think on his own and argue, a total anachronism. With its reductionist tendencies, science has created what are essentially robots who seem to think in similarly fragmented, hyper-specialized, broken ways and who are only too eager to appeal to borrowed arguments from authority. The result is a population which seems to have lost its sense of all that is human in this world, the grayness of issues, the lack of clear blacks and whites, the idea that we still live in a world where, when all is said and done and strictly speaking, nothing can be proven as a surety and which is why it is still of use to learn from diverse sources.

I think the idea that there either already exists some scientific explanation to our question or that there will be one one day is a dangerous one because it allows us to shift the responsibility of thinking about it to someone else and to some other time. We are, once again, throwing our lot and our hopes with an external authority. We have done it time and time again with different gods but this time the God is Science. It's the latest agency to say to us, believe in me, I'm right. At this point I want to clarify that I have the utmost respect for the true scientific attitude. My problem is with how science is seen in the current society, as the last word in all matters, as something worth groveling against. And this is not an accident but the unintended consequence of the narrow-minded and idiotic efforts of such scientists as Dawkins.

Loading...
X