Monday, July 25, 2016

The sad tale of John and Sarah: The eulogy



...http://honnasiriscatch.blogspot.in/2012/09/the-sad-tale-of-john-sarah-ii.html...
...http://honnasiriscatch.blogspot.in/2012/12/the-sad-tale-of-john-sarah-iii.html
...
...http://honnasiriscatch.blogspot.in/2013/07/the-sad-tale-of-john-and-sarah-iv.html...

We are gathered here to pay tribute to this sad tale of John & Sarah. Seasons come and go, but this stubborn tale refuses to evolve. Winds can blow, to and fro, but this tale just shall not prevail (or so Sarah says). Life is people, and people are stubborn. When we don’t have a choice, we blame life and get on with it. Eventually, people or at least somebody, bears the brunt of it. Who gets that privilege is your best guess.

So here is a final goodbye note to Sarah from John.

Dear Sarah,

 It was fun. Thanks, but you have decided that I’ll never do right by you. The only way I will, ever, is to be left hanging... waiting... till you go back into oblivion again. So, I’ll sing you some from a Dylan song and “leave” (as you often suggest I should do even if I don’t do or say something annoying):

Still I wish there was somethin’ you would do or say
To try and make me change my mind and stay
We never did too much talkin’ anyway
So don’t think twice, it’s all right

It ain’t no use in callin’ out my name, gal
I can’t hear you anymore
I’m a-thinkin’ and a-wond’rin’ all the way down the road
I once loved a woman, a child I’m told
I give her my heart but she wanted my soul
But don’t think twice, it’s all right

I ain’t sayin’ you treated me unkind
You could have done better but I don’t mind
You just kinda wasted my precious time
But don’t think twice, it’s all right   

I’m sure you’ll never to get to see this eulogy. So, like the silence I’ve lived with so long, I’ll just speak straight into it... and leave... first. 

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

A societal black hole, and our consistent attempt to defy it

This post comes from reading about Frank Abagnale Jr., the real life story of whom has been portrayed in the movie Catch Me If You Can. He actually did all that Leornardo Di Caprio did in the movie, and more! In a recent interview with him, he was quoted saying:

I am a true believer that one of the biggest problems for crime in America today is lack of ethics and character.  True, we do not teach ethics at home. We don’t teach it in school because the teacher would be accused of teaching morality.

...and I agree with that. Ethics is taught, not got. Morals, on the other hand, are got. The fine line between something being taught and got is consistency. Every society in the world that survives peacefully and respectably, most importantly to its own members, thrives on balance and balance leads to consistency. We need balance and consistency. Yes, both.

Consistency implies linearity in values and functioning. Balance implies growing from that linearity into newer territory which may deviate from that but which expands that to the new, more accommodating linear nature of society. For example, if society endorsed that pointy shoes were the shoes to be worn in public, and all agreed, that's what we would be taught by and brought up with. We would consider it highly unfashionable to wear anything but pointy shoes to a formal occasion and the person who did would be booed/looked down upon or expelled. That's linearity (or consistency).

Now, times move forward and people bring along vans as acceptable wear. So people start booing while being countered with the logic of moving forward in the world. Soon enough, vans will be accepted as acceptable footwear too, and people with vans and pointy shoes are not booed, perhaps over a much longer time but nonetheless. That's balance.

While society leans well on consistency, it provides adequate and reasonable room for tolerance in balance. That's an openminded, reasonable society. But don't be mistaken, society had to be led. When a child is brought up, he/she is brought up in a particular way, some particular way. Children can't be brought up in no way. Instructions can't be empty and unintentional, even if they're just passed on culturally. And when we don't think about the instructions we impart, we teach what was always taught and cycle of meaninglessness in society goes on and on and on.

Each of the things we teach them, meaninglessly, just like how it could have been taught to us, become the basis of how we percieve, act and behave. And, collectively, that contributes to the stupidity of society which we'll never realise because we become (and are) that exact stupidity and stupidity cannot recognise itself. Duh! So if you want to not get to that stage, think before you become it. Once you've crossed that line, you can never turn back to being the unstupid people that society will need at all points in time.    

This is where the right ethics comes in. It was either always taught, or never taught. People who were taught know them. People who weren't don't. So the ones who steal and crime don't consider it to be wrong simply because they were never taught that it was wrong, and it's way too late now. It's the opposite case with those who were taught that it is. And that's what Frank Abegnale Jr's right about.

But go one step back, and you'll realise that if you ever have the ethics problem that you don't realise, you didn't have parents who questioned what they lived and therefore what they taught you. They never considered life a (positive) contributive force that evolves into greater society goodness that advances how we live together as a society. That's exactly why you do what you do, and speak of wrong, right, bad and good the way you specifically do. 

They just lived, and never wondered to ask why, except wonder how someone can ask them how they could just simply do that. Doing that creates habitual but meaningless ways and values of living that defies the fact that a societal black hole cannot exist, by logic, whether good or bad. When we do that, we ignore the inherent meaning in the meaninglessness. Habits that are loaded with values that build people and society are treated like the fancy toilet paper that ends up being used because there's so much extra, and there's only that (and nothing else). Like we're so used to it, we don't even see the irony. Like we never will.

That's why Frank Abagnale Jr. is right. We've go to think about 1) how we live 2) the world we live in (minus the obvious unquestioned comfort about how things have been how they will be) 3) how we bring up our children (and the next generation).

Thoughts on that, anyone? Let's start with 1) first.

Monday, December 28, 2015

We have no rights (The Consumer Rights Extension)

Coming from We have no rights...

In this age of rising consumerism, there is a strange sense of what's due to usin the services these Pvt. Ltds. provide, from their very stated purpose and motive to exist and thrive to the freedoms and sops that are freely expected so that a favourable economic system is available for their growth (of course, not forgetting our benefit as well *sly wink*).

A capitalistic society considers the rise of industry the foundation of its prosperity, but a more objective look will show you that we are creating a monster that we are breeding our complete dependence on. It will become its own and will control us. It's like a stilt house on a river that's poorly built but which we yet insist on additionally supporting because of the convenient, mostly blind short-term attention span that we exercise with things like success, aspiration, achievement and glory.

Most obsessions over these concepts are by people who haven't been imbibed with better, primary inner-soul filling obsessions when they were growing up. They didn't have enough self-interests to follow so the empty space was sold to the next thing that would make them bakrasand who wouldn't want to make shitloads of cash and maybe become a billionaire. Counting the cost can go to hell. Who wastes time with things like that anyway? All that you burn and the bridges you destroy will never match upto the grandeur you create. What's this life for anyway? Certainly not to keep memories intact, however beautiful they may be. We have to advance on in victory. If we don't destroy and kill, we will never recreate and cross barriers. 

While such romanticism can engage a bored mind that any high-ended education system leaves you with, it will go nowhere. We'll be right back to where we started, maybe even at a point before tyhat point. We'd realise that the only reason we champion this gaint capitalistic effort: because we know no better because we've been taught to know no better by people who have been taught to know no better. I wonder when greed will surface with a face eventually. It gives a sense of entitlement of what is "expected", because you gotta keep with the flow, bro, or lose out big time—lose the attention of people who had no attention in the first place and have it (the attention of ones who you are in "threat" of losing) on sale for the next slimy offer.

This brings up the question of why this is such an important thing in the first place. A captalist culture is one-sided (sorry, competitive). You're forced to change to the best player(s) side, or die, just that you can't die and you're forced to change. What it does is take the pre-sanctity of a life which we're supposed to ensure without a price on it and jack up that price to make it cost a million lifetimes at least. Happy times, a daily meal, a roof on your head, daily humanity, compassion and such are things that we never had a price (even a hidden one) for us to put a price on them in the first place. The competition we're forced to live in compels us to make the easier, more expensive gamble to offer them up to the market so that they remain accessible at a more expensive price than when they had no price on it! Like how fresh extracted juice with no additives costs more than fruit juice with additives. Or organic food is more expensive that inorganic food.

Apparently, we need the competition because it helps us do better. But when did games become real life and real life games? At school when we had sports days, we competed our hearts out. When all the fun was over, all the children (champions, cheerers and non-winners) were equal in front of the teacher for something as inconspicuous as marks.The latter is the important goal; the former is an add-on perk. We need to be running after development with profit as a mode of operation, not the opposite. Any development we need that badly will easily be on the upcoming horizon, and pretty much a regular, normal thing—not something we have to out-of-the-box strategise about like how we play games. Any extra responses to growth that is by any means slow (once you define what external factors you need to "keep up" with) will be something that we respond to because we still remain people who use our brains, hands, legs and feet on the go (because we didn't sell their use away as well for the comfortable lifestyle we're not offered a choice out of).  

What's left to be seen is how the people who swear by above described logic design their life when they have all the money but no more resources, cultural beliefs or people's lives to squeeze. All hail (crony) capitalism!  

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

The Activism Crunch

Honest confession: I'm a green-lover and a poacher/hunter hater. What does that have to do with anything? Everything, given how these things have come to a common point these days. If many critics have their way, the clearer answer to that is slacktivism, or arm chair activism. A bunch of people who don't share these views and some who don't care for energy being spent on them who think we should spend our time "actually doing 'something' about them".

There's so much irony and ignorance in that statement that if it was packed in a grenade and placed at the centre of the earth, the planet would explode with pieces going to the far expanses of a galaxy beyond, and we'd learn so much more than just poking from light years away at them with telescopes, satellites and what not. Hopefully this post will explain why.

News recently has been inundated with outrage over Cecil the lion. Prior to this, for a considerable amount of time, I was subjected to questions that asked me what I was "doing" about the green myself instead of just making a noise about it going away. See. Here's the thing. I wouldn't have to scream and shout and wave my activism all about if the people who I was raising my voice against the actions of didn't do them in the first place.

I'm reminded of a conversation another person of similar mind. Whether it's the forests of Mahan, my own church campus which was wantonly destroyed end-to-end, Lavasa or Cecil (the list is long), the people who wreck the destruction are the people to whom the beauty didn't belong in the first place. As much as a multi-billion corporate honcho wants to take away someone else's forest land for development, he wouldn't dare give up his own for any cause that he'd tag with equal nobility. If his home (and his own) is as precious as a home should be, he would fight for it tooth and nail. He wouldn't need to either with his billions and the pull that they cause. God forbid he stops churning it lest all us poor people lose out on their trickle down effect and wreck us all. He is God and when God speaks we all shut up.

All these homely values go down the drain the moment he has destroy forest land or convert well, balanced urban space into "development" fodder. What he has is the Itchy Hands Effect.It's when you have nothing to and your hands itch and you just gotta, you know? It is caused by the Empty Brain Phenomena. That's when stuff is heaped into our brain that as useless and leaving it empty. Heave a whole bunch of thanks of our inane education system and societal values. Combine that with itchy hands and you've got a recipe for destruction. You may as well hold a grenade in your hands and play with the pin, or carve it for fun, because you're such a dimwit about how grenades work. Basically, wrong person, wrong hands, wrong timing... wrong everything. As Bob Dylan would put it, "there ought to be a law against you coming around."

But, sadly, these mismatches of hands, people and resources  happen way, way, way, way, way too often for any activism to be overrated or underplayed. In fact, that's why we need activism in all kinds—armchair, placard, online, tailing... you name it. The wrong people keep on handling the wrong things oblivious of the Itchy Hands Effect and they ask the right people what they've "done about it" apart from preaching their values down other people's throat. Why would over-dependent industries (and hunting maniacs) cripple entire ecosystems and then say that activism is "lazy". It wouldn't need to exist in the first place without their dimwittedness and their perceived right to touch and "transform" everything they see. They need to go and get their Itchy Hands Effect checked and corrected. Once done, their hands won't be itchy and they won't spurn anything that deserves activism. But, the problem lies deeper. It's a mind problem. Remember the Empty Brain Phenomena? Because of it, they will never, ever get around to understanding this because, well, their brains are empty and they have been fed with too much ego to admit that and quit. They justify it with even more mismatching and mandhandling with empty brain logic so that the precious little nothing in their heads stand is not off-balanced.  
 
The right people, in these cases, are arguing the opposite—just leave it alone. There's nothing anyone needs to "do" about anything. Corporates, activists, everyone. Even if the activists do whatever it is they're supposed to do about it, that's what they'd do—leave it alone!   

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

We have no rights

You raise up your head
And you ask, “Is this where it is?”
And somebody points to you and says
“It’s his”
And you say, “What’s mine?”
And somebody else says, “Where what is?”
And you say, “Oh my God
Am I here all alone?”

- Bob Dylan, Ballad Of A Thin Man

What's mine? Well, what indeed is? As a matter of fact, what's ours? How does it become ours? In the politics of grabbing to keep, this becomes a pivotal moral question. Furthermore, what should we be able to expect without question and pay back to the givers in person-to-person, customer-to-company and inter-family relations?

In all the demands we make with these, there are never rules set. They are always based on reciprocationkinda like if-we're-in-this-together-it-has-to-be-give-and-take. Kinda like we just go with the natural limits of how far we can go with how much we are getting back, and we do that with equal sanctity for the other person's kickbacks as much as we protect ours with. That's fair and easy. Of course, all this includes the dynamics of sacrifice, love, affection and heart as well, wherever applicable.

Our disagreements of whose line ought to be drawn where, and what infringes into which (and whose) right, are natural and shapes how we view the world. It also changes our ideas about how it should be viewed in the best interest of everybody. Our interests are all intertwined. The isolation we live in these days is a fantasy that we're strangely affording ourselves that doesn't exist. We need each other to become ourselves. If we actually had no one in this non-existent isolated fantasy, we'll all be a bunch of absolute no ones.
This means that we are what we are to each other, for each other and for ourselves. That's a mighty fine line to balance, but an essential trait of a human society. We're not at war with anybody who's more right. We're at war within ourselves, exactly like how we play fantasy games on our smart devices with  no consequence, and the fervour we play them with (which comes with that very consequence). There's always a reset to beginning button and we continue playing again if we die, in any case.

This war is our raison d'etre even if we choose to choose a million other raison d'etres. We're born with it. We ignore it at our risk. We enjoy it with the growing benefit of actually co-creating our world, and welcoming the same co-creation into our lives as we move farther away from being no ones to becoming someones (all of us) who  have some use to somebody at least . If we insert selfish motives in this equation, we betray the very source of them. The only reason we would selfishly assert ourselves is because we have disconnected ourselves from network of constantly co-creating the world around us and ourselves;our purpose loses its ecosystem and, in effect, loses its purpose, as a result of which it force-finds a new purpose and uses threats as a means for survival. It's an all but natural reaction. Give it its original ecosystem and you'll lose the need to be selfish.

We have no rights. We only think we have them.When we reattach our roots, our rights fall out of place. Instead, we have a role to find a place in our ecosystem, that connects with the exact similar roles that everyone else has as well.

Monday, June 16, 2014

One for mid-life crisised

Referencing from these posts onwards: The confessions of an introvert | My coming out | The dilemma of managing a house | The perils (and lessons) from living in a competitive home environment

So, once you're done with all those posts, you would understand where I stand. A mid-life crisis is no mean enemy to anything good, positive and happy. It kills the spirit. It gives 'bleh!' a completely new definition - especially when you get up every morning with the feeling. What's worse is that it has a late realisation syndrome. You get to know of it when it weighs down on you like lead with has a super-high magnetic strip on the side (it never leaves, even if you want it to, with all your might).

It's an impossible situation. You're up against a wall that's built to block you. Life is lived with that wall always touching your nose, while you wait for some grace to come through. You're always waiting for a breakthrough. It's like going to a store everyday repeatedly hoping that it will be open and it never is, except for those few times that it is. It's only your good fortune (or misfortune) that you do find it open (and your world changes completely like as if you got the "open sesame" right that once), which is a really, really rare occurrence that your happiness depends on.  

Here's a word to those whose lives concur with a mid-life crisis, especially of this kind.

Bandwidth close to 0: Your world just shrunk, as much in a second as much as it was the open, free field that caused you your happiness. Your resources are scarce. When you don't realise it so much, you're like, "What the heck is this weird mood?". When you do, you're weary as hell of spending even a speck from it. You only consciously do that if you know there's a reward that's due for certain - implicit or explicit. Some things give you joy anyway (the implicit ones) and some need adequate response to be worth your while (the explicit ones).

Babysteps everyday: Once the confrontational conflict is over, the residue it leaves behind is like coming out from your underground hiding place after a war. The whole, wonderful, curated-for-happiness world that was the organic, natural place for you to thrive. Just when you thought the war was over and all will be normal again, you're hit with the fact that you've been forcefully oriented away from that world, in a millisecond. You literally have to feel your way around till your disorientation hits you. And, when you do, the shot to the head's the shocker-bomb. You're like, "Woaaahhhh!", but in the worst context ever. You come to detest the feeling but it's already embedded in your life. It's already a full part of your memoirs.

You know the habit, but you've lost the fire within. The exercise holds absolutely no value anymore. Any, and every, single one of your habits that organically mattered (and which you consequently weren't evaluative about but more than completely aware of and which you understood as you needed too) don't have the slightest meaning which they used to. They're foreign to you, despite you knowing how to repeat the exercise perfectly. Your identity has been silently switched for another and the yet unchanged depths of your soul refuse to accept it. You soon start to be thankful for the resilience that it has. That resilience, only, sustains you and pushes you forward.

Don't you dare take away my happy place: In the midst of all the disorientation, you're left without the side holder that you always had, that you never realised (which, too, you suddenly realised is gone - all in the same moment). The feeling's like hanging on to a plane in flight and having no hope of getting to a safer, normal place. Considering all that's stripped away from you, the last thing you want is to lose those precious places of happiness.

The only way you can last that plan is if you last this crisis. And the only way you can last this crisis is if you maintain your sanity. The most important part of that sanity are these precious moments which are sacrosanct. They are called happy places for a reason. If you take yourself them away from them, you become a sad places and all remaining hope in life simply vanishes into thin air.

These are your simple victories - the ones you prefer to celebrate even if I didn't have to go through a mid-life crisis. Given your present predicament, you're keeping them - close. They may be the only reason you will escape unscathed. You're keeping them, however inconspicuous to any grand plan of life and progress they may be. You need your head straight and sane till you get out of his mess please, thank you very much. If this is what it takes to make that possibility real, you're clinging on to them. It'll have to do.

Yes, I get it. I'm slow: The one thing people don't get about you is that you're experiencing it, more than you can possibly express the feeling. They either get it or they don't. And if they don't, they won't. They have to go through the same grind first.  Apparently, the pain of being seemingly unremovably chained down can be dealt in a minute with by using positive living advice out of a self-help motivational video or book. Indeed it can. Perhaps those who offer it should try it themselves first, in your shoes if at all they can wear them. Unfortunately for them, your breakthroughs are truly gold and have almost nothing to do with the effort you put in to achieve them. They appear and disappear. You really are lucky to catch any break, if you have the bandwidth left in the first place, to pounce on any one you may catch popping up - to make the best of them. You wait to devour moments like these that hold any promise.

Where's my key? Sorry, you don't have it: What sucks, and really does, is that you don't have the key to your own life (despite all those self-motivational quotes). During the storm that landed you in a mid-life crisis, it was sucked by the winds and it's nowhere to be found. Now you're stuck, groping in the dark, for anything that seems likely to be it because you want to get back up so badly and you have no clue. You just hope your almost zero bandwith won't give out because, then, you'd have to wait on those amazing moments to be popping up all over again.

Life sucks, doesn't it?

Saturday, April 5, 2014

Open Letter: The imposition of morality and amorality

Dear atheist/non-believer/extreme #equality proponent/cultural believer,

 I am writing this letter to you because of the increasing sense that I get from the world around me of what I am writing this letter to address. Let's call imposition. What it does it mean? It means to force-place something on someone else. Now, before I continue, let me say this: the way the world works is complicated. We do things and don't know we do them. We also, in many cases, have to end up doing the things we want to do by eventually affecting the things we don't want to affect. Given the single line of sight that we seem to have in mind, we wouldn't mind that eventuality. It certainly is easy to shove to the side than it is to actually face the true complexity of the world.

There have been disagreements, debates, fights and protests over our collective views (on each side) over the acceptance of homosexuality, pro-abortion rights, the existence of God and such... the list goes on. The views of each person on the same side don't necessarily match with each side's collective view, but are more or less same in spirit. Each side has their own rogue elements as well, as is expected from any large group of common interest.

Now, the crux of the matter - this 'interest'. It would seem that we have completely different such interests, all set within their own paradigms. I shall present our differences and make my case that they are essentially inarguable, one against another, for the reason that they are so different.

Almost the whole lot of you are absolute permissivists. Morality for you existeth not, except for a constructed one that's more a changing alibi that justifies whatever 'morality' be that you wish to keep - premises include the changing times et al. We all have one specific, most basic, set of rules that we follow, whatever be their premise and however briefly we follow them till the next change - full or partial (on whatever premise that may be, as well). Each point in time of our lives has a certain, stone-ised set of rules (not necessarily religiously or socially moral) that we, ideally, morally defend to death. None of us are truly amoral, or moralless, except those people who are indeed, completely shameless. I (who respects that), on the other hand, have a certain moral code that was not 'constructed'. It is widely followed (cue for credibility). I expect you to respect that. Those are our undeniable bases. We come to the table like that. We can come in no other form, and we aren't even close to stepping on toes yet.

The discussion regarding it has to be a religious discussion and must be had on the premise of one. You believe in no morality, except a convenient one, and I in some morality that I didn't construct which has existed since a while. To diss it, we would have to have a debate on the basis of religionism - its nature, benefits, and one that examines religion (after accepting and understanding it, even if just for the sake of argument). We can discuss historical origins, historical significance, benefits, sustainability, and even the old elementary question of God's very existence among other things, but we cannot discuss religionism vs. areligionism because that would not be a equal, discussion. Somehow, that is all we end up doing. You end up imposing your areligionism on my religionism. You're being more moralistic than me, in such a case. Your grounds are:

Rationality (If God could be proved, he wouldn't be whatever God I claim him to be.)
Non-'humanness' (We are all human beings, religious or not, and all systems stand to be abused for which the abusers need to  be faulted. That's why a religious discussion will separate true specific religion from abused religion. Throwing religion and God out like the baby with the bath water is not the solution. Religion has become far more integrated into life than for you to do that. There are some religious beliefs which are contradictory to the way everyday life happens. Reconciliation is a little difficult there, but nonetheless it remains a personal decision and doesn't yet breach the limits of individual humanity in most cases.)
Contradictions (I didn't claim perfection. I claim conviction. I'm willing to live with what I've chose. Remember #respect? I reserve the right to remain stupid (however we define it for the other person), as do you. We should leave essential discussion topics, in this context, out of the ambit of discussion.)
Phobia/Hatred (I haven't stoned anyone yet and note the second paragraph of this letter. I am saying what I believe and am exercising my choice to be able to (note the bit on reconciliation in the second point here).)
Universality of tolerance (An example here. There have been some attempts, to make a case in point, of a connection between racism and anti-homosexual marriage for many reasons because it's discrimination of a birth-state of a person. But, no, the two aren't equable. The disagreement comes when we just allow ourselves to say, whenever we feel like, "I, too, want your lollipop" and do what we please, as we please and when we please with no understanding and consideration any else that's connected. And when we disagree on the details in between, we allow ourselves to keep our views and not impose on another. But the 'pro'-homosexuality folk want the others to change their thinking in a rather innocent Orwellian 1984 style (which is what irks them when we don't just simply accept what they say is). As for for those us who impose Orwellian-aly in the other direction, note the second paragraph on this post)  

So there.