Bhagwad Gita 2.69
या निशा सर्व भूतानाम् तस्याम् जागर्ति संयमी
यस्यां जागर्ति भूतानि सा निशा पश्यतो मुनेः
What is night to all beings is the time of awakening for the seeker
When all are active and awake, that apparent day is like the night for the silent.
Bhagwad Gita 3.27
प्रकरते क्रियामाणानी गुणैः कर्माणि सर्वशः
अंहकार विमूढात्मा कर्ताहमिति मन्यते
All processes are due to the qualities of nature
An egoist deludes himself in thinking "I am am the doer."
...
Ishavasyam Upanishad, sholka one:
इशावास्यम इदं सर्वं यतकिन्च जगत्याम जगत
तेंत्यक्तेनभुन्जिथा माँ गृधः कस्यस्विद धनं
All that is, in this world or another, is enveloped by the Lord
Knowing this, be content, and do not covet anybody's wealth.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
रात के मुसाफिर
The lyrics of the end titles song from Gulaal, a 2009 Hindi film:
ओ रात के मुसाफिर
तू भागना संभलके
पोटली में तेरी हो आग ना
... संभलके
चल तो तू पड़ा है
फासला बड़ा है
जान ले अंधेरे के सर पे खून चढा है
मुकाम खोज ले तू
मकान खोज ले तू
इन्सान के शहर में इन्सान खोज ले तू
देख तेरी ठोकर से
राह का वो पत्थर
माथे पे तेरे कसके लग जाए ना
... उछलके
ओ रात के मुसाफिर
तू भागना संभलके
पोटली में तेरी हो आग ना
... संभलके
माना कि जो हुआ है
वो तूने भी किया है
इन्हों ने भी किया है
उन्हों ने भी किया है
माना कि तूने ... हाँ हाँ
चाहा नहीं था लेकिन
तू जानता नहीं कि ये कैसे हो गया है
लेकिन तू फिर भी सुन ले
नहीं सुनेगा कोई
तुझे ये सारी दुनिया खा जायेगी
...निगल के
Monday, June 29, 2009
On Rationality
To be rational is to be sensible and reasonable, instead of being silly and emotional. To expect rational behavior is to expect that a person will behave in an optimal manner.
Irrationality should not be confused with being illogical. Something is illogical if and only if it is a contradiction in itself. A state of affairs in the world can never be inherently contradictory or illogical. Two separate events can be mutually conflicting, for example someone wanting quick money but being afraid of investing in the stock market, that is not a logical contradiction, only a circumstantial one.
However, since the "mind" is perceived as a single entity, contradictions, instead of being realized as conflicting impulses in the brain, are wrongly perceived as a brain in contradiction.
...
Emotions and passions are powerful but highly sub-optimal reactions to a situation. If a man or an animal threatens you, to shout at him with a great deal of anger and fear can deter him off. This kind of behavior, which obviously has a survival value, can be easily observed in higher mammals, including humans.
Affective punches are very potent because of their strong receptivity in other beings. A child can simply bitterly cry and have his unreasonable demands fulfilled. An adult can simply sulk or appear distressed and arouse sympathy and redressal.
Very strong affective reactions are usually non-conflicting, in that they overwhelm the brain and extinguish any conflicting impulses or thoughts. A surge of anger can feel very "right", a surge of affection can feel very "true" and so on.
Rationality is not the absence of conflict, for strong affective reactions are non-conflicting as well. Rationality is the optimal and non-affective response to a challenge. A conflicting set of thoughts can be properly weighed to evolve a optimal, and hence, rational response.
Suppose a 7-day vacation to a particularly preferred destination is too expensive to be affordable, a rational response might be to have a short vacation there, or to have a 7-day vacation at some other less preferred place.
A rational person can choose to act rationally (i.e. sensibly), but how practical is it to depend on other human beings being rational? It is not very hard to conclude that in a crisis most humans will behave irrationally rather than rationally (due to the very structure of the human brain and brain stem). Affective responses start operating prior to a rational response in the human brain.
In the modern world, in face of a passionate and socially reprehensible act by another human being, when appeal to reason fails, one takes recourse to the law enforcement authorities. It is assumed that the law enforcement will curb the passion and re-establish sensible behavior.
But it is also true that law enforcement apparatus in most countries is biased, convoluted, requires formal expertise and is therefore non-optimal. And in a country like India, archaic laws are still in operation (for example laws which forbid homosexuality).
In such a scenario, when appeal to the aggressor's reason and recourse to law both fail for a rational person, what is the sensible response? It has been said that shouting (as if in anger) at an unreasonable person can be resorted to without getting affectively charged, but such shouting can be curiously ineffectual. The affective punch is missing from the act. If an angry shout is resorted to as a deterring gesture, then pretending to be angry is obviously less authentic and punchy than actually being angry.
The question is: can a rational person survive and thrive in a pre-modern society where institutional support for controlling passionate behavior is lacking?
As another example, suppose a man attempts to rape a woman in a secluded Indian village. If a woman cries, or otherwise gets extremely distressed, the man can possibly let her go, out of guilt or remorse. But if she only pretends to be distressed, or cannot bring tears in her eyes, the man will assume that the woman is not too unwilling and will have less of guilt in his raping attempt.
Hence, rationality requires institutional support. Intellectual growth and human evolution can happen only with the confidence that it is safe to act rationally rather than passionately.
And that confidence can be developed only there are enough precedents of reprehensible or harmful passionate behavior being suitably deterred. Till then, perhaps exceptional human beings can develop their intellects, but the vast multitudes will continue to wallow in irrational but effective responses to aggravations.
...
I also find it curious that in Indian cities (unlike in Indian villages), when a human being is in a situation of crisis, people observe rather than help. Obviously the risk of legal entanglement is there, but then why the urge to watch?
I think it is easily explained if one considers that an Indian city (in the absence of institutional support) is a den of uncertainty and unexpected stress, whereas a village is more traditional and expectation-driven. In a city, therefore, people have a greater drive to learn about the various potential crises and of what works and what doesn't. The curiously dispassionate observation of a fight or of the plight of an accident victim is therefore an instinctual attempt to constantly educate oneself about the various dangers of city life in India. Such observation and learning is understandably done mostly by males, who are most in need of honing their city survival instincts.
It is simplistic to decry a human being living in a pre-modern society for behaving like an animal. He/she cannot afford the luxury of acting rationally. For him/her, behaving emotionally and passionately is optimal, and hence ... almost rational.
Irrationality should not be confused with being illogical. Something is illogical if and only if it is a contradiction in itself. A state of affairs in the world can never be inherently contradictory or illogical. Two separate events can be mutually conflicting, for example someone wanting quick money but being afraid of investing in the stock market, that is not a logical contradiction, only a circumstantial one.
However, since the "mind" is perceived as a single entity, contradictions, instead of being realized as conflicting impulses in the brain, are wrongly perceived as a brain in contradiction.
...
Emotions and passions are powerful but highly sub-optimal reactions to a situation. If a man or an animal threatens you, to shout at him with a great deal of anger and fear can deter him off. This kind of behavior, which obviously has a survival value, can be easily observed in higher mammals, including humans.
Affective punches are very potent because of their strong receptivity in other beings. A child can simply bitterly cry and have his unreasonable demands fulfilled. An adult can simply sulk or appear distressed and arouse sympathy and redressal.
Very strong affective reactions are usually non-conflicting, in that they overwhelm the brain and extinguish any conflicting impulses or thoughts. A surge of anger can feel very "right", a surge of affection can feel very "true" and so on.
Rationality is not the absence of conflict, for strong affective reactions are non-conflicting as well. Rationality is the optimal and non-affective response to a challenge. A conflicting set of thoughts can be properly weighed to evolve a optimal, and hence, rational response.
Suppose a 7-day vacation to a particularly preferred destination is too expensive to be affordable, a rational response might be to have a short vacation there, or to have a 7-day vacation at some other less preferred place.
A rational person can choose to act rationally (i.e. sensibly), but how practical is it to depend on other human beings being rational? It is not very hard to conclude that in a crisis most humans will behave irrationally rather than rationally (due to the very structure of the human brain and brain stem). Affective responses start operating prior to a rational response in the human brain.
In the modern world, in face of a passionate and socially reprehensible act by another human being, when appeal to reason fails, one takes recourse to the law enforcement authorities. It is assumed that the law enforcement will curb the passion and re-establish sensible behavior.
But it is also true that law enforcement apparatus in most countries is biased, convoluted, requires formal expertise and is therefore non-optimal. And in a country like India, archaic laws are still in operation (for example laws which forbid homosexuality).
In such a scenario, when appeal to the aggressor's reason and recourse to law both fail for a rational person, what is the sensible response? It has been said that shouting (as if in anger) at an unreasonable person can be resorted to without getting affectively charged, but such shouting can be curiously ineffectual. The affective punch is missing from the act. If an angry shout is resorted to as a deterring gesture, then pretending to be angry is obviously less authentic and punchy than actually being angry.
The question is: can a rational person survive and thrive in a pre-modern society where institutional support for controlling passionate behavior is lacking?
As another example, suppose a man attempts to rape a woman in a secluded Indian village. If a woman cries, or otherwise gets extremely distressed, the man can possibly let her go, out of guilt or remorse. But if she only pretends to be distressed, or cannot bring tears in her eyes, the man will assume that the woman is not too unwilling and will have less of guilt in his raping attempt.
Hence, rationality requires institutional support. Intellectual growth and human evolution can happen only with the confidence that it is safe to act rationally rather than passionately.
And that confidence can be developed only there are enough precedents of reprehensible or harmful passionate behavior being suitably deterred. Till then, perhaps exceptional human beings can develop their intellects, but the vast multitudes will continue to wallow in irrational but effective responses to aggravations.
...
I also find it curious that in Indian cities (unlike in Indian villages), when a human being is in a situation of crisis, people observe rather than help. Obviously the risk of legal entanglement is there, but then why the urge to watch?
I think it is easily explained if one considers that an Indian city (in the absence of institutional support) is a den of uncertainty and unexpected stress, whereas a village is more traditional and expectation-driven. In a city, therefore, people have a greater drive to learn about the various potential crises and of what works and what doesn't. The curiously dispassionate observation of a fight or of the plight of an accident victim is therefore an instinctual attempt to constantly educate oneself about the various dangers of city life in India. Such observation and learning is understandably done mostly by males, who are most in need of honing their city survival instincts.
It is simplistic to decry a human being living in a pre-modern society for behaving like an animal. He/she cannot afford the luxury of acting rationally. For him/her, behaving emotionally and passionately is optimal, and hence ... almost rational.
Friday, June 26, 2009
The Girlfriend Experience by Steven Soderbergh
Now this is a very uncomfortable film about dehumanization and alienation, though one may be forgiven for considering it a titillating expose of the "escort culture". If Dubai and Manhattan sound like Mecca to you, and if success in business seems like an enchanting way to find happiness, and if you wonder what is loneliness, this film may provide a perspective which is deeply authentic.
This is a companion piece to Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut because it (just like that film) is ultimately a nuanced critique of ruthless capitalism and of a pathetic kind of hedonism. Capitalism is about banking on one's capital (be it in physical assets or otherwise) to create further wealth. And this requires a certain amount of ruthlessness for the agenda is of making as much money (profit) as possible by as little effort (cost) as possible.
Pathetic hedonism is a compulsive urge to partake of pleasure, and when that partaking leaves one as empty and dissatisfied as before. Both in Kubrick's film and in this, the pleasure seems an almost detached, dream-like activity with little depth. In both films, an act of pleasure is more of a distraction from stress rather than genuine pleasure or joy. If being a party animal is a silly way to unwind for nubile professionals, then both these films show how there is no unwinding as you get entangled more and more in living by selling.
Prostitution is just a very crude form of selling oneself. In The Girlfriend Experience, notice the following forms of selling:
"The girlfriend experience" is the epitome of this hyperreal pyramid. This experience (romantic love) is strictly about gratifying the ego, and how can one possibly convince oneself that a paid escort really loves oneself to the point of distraction? This is not just sex, this is the commodification of love itself. Enjoying a paid-for girlfriend experience requires a cognitive dissonance which is simply astonishing. And it automatically leads to a dependence on repeat experiences. The more contradictory a pleasurable experience, the more one wants to experience it in the hope that the contradiction is an illusion.
When you see this film, notice the extreme superficiality of everybody's responses, and the stress that that lack of spontaneity creates. Everybody, from the personal trainer to the "reviewer" (played by the famous film critic Glen Kenny), is curiously (but subtly) unnatural. This unnaturalness is the cost of success.
The only time the protagonist gives in to her true nature, and is spontaneous, she becomes stressed about the crack in the veneer and quickly jumps back into her successful persona.
This film is a treatise on selling, and on the inadequacy of what is sold.
Mark 8:36 needs no explanation.
The film is also remarkable for the visual artistry.
(in the above frame, notice the shadows instead of real people, and the obstruction between human beings)
This is a companion piece to Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut because it (just like that film) is ultimately a nuanced critique of ruthless capitalism and of a pathetic kind of hedonism. Capitalism is about banking on one's capital (be it in physical assets or otherwise) to create further wealth. And this requires a certain amount of ruthlessness for the agenda is of making as much money (profit) as possible by as little effort (cost) as possible.
Pathetic hedonism is a compulsive urge to partake of pleasure, and when that partaking leaves one as empty and dissatisfied as before. Both in Kubrick's film and in this, the pleasure seems an almost detached, dream-like activity with little depth. In both films, an act of pleasure is more of a distraction from stress rather than genuine pleasure or joy. If being a party animal is a silly way to unwind for nubile professionals, then both these films show how there is no unwinding as you get entangled more and more in living by selling.
Prostitution is just a very crude form of selling oneself. In The Girlfriend Experience, notice the following forms of selling:
- Selling of appearance (by the personal trainer)
- Selling of branded goods (by the couture industry)
- Selling of wealth creation opportunities (by the investment bankers)
- Selling of dining experiences (by the gourmet industry)
- Selling of one's business ideas
and finally - Selling of the Girlfriend Experience
"The girlfriend experience" is the epitome of this hyperreal pyramid. This experience (romantic love) is strictly about gratifying the ego, and how can one possibly convince oneself that a paid escort really loves oneself to the point of distraction? This is not just sex, this is the commodification of love itself. Enjoying a paid-for girlfriend experience requires a cognitive dissonance which is simply astonishing. And it automatically leads to a dependence on repeat experiences. The more contradictory a pleasurable experience, the more one wants to experience it in the hope that the contradiction is an illusion.
When you see this film, notice the extreme superficiality of everybody's responses, and the stress that that lack of spontaneity creates. Everybody, from the personal trainer to the "reviewer" (played by the famous film critic Glen Kenny), is curiously (but subtly) unnatural. This unnaturalness is the cost of success.
The only time the protagonist gives in to her true nature, and is spontaneous, she becomes stressed about the crack in the veneer and quickly jumps back into her successful persona.
This film is a treatise on selling, and on the inadequacy of what is sold.
Mark 8:36 needs no explanation.
The film is also remarkable for the visual artistry.
(in the above frame, notice the shadows instead of real people, and the obstruction between human beings)
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Actual Freedom FAQs, my understanding
FAQs page on the AFT Website:
http://tinyurl.com/faqindex
My understanding of the answers to some of the FAQs:
http://tinyurl.com/affaqs
Short comments and feedback welcome on the blog, but for involved discussions, and if you are so inclined, please join the Actual Freedom mailing list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom
http://tinyurl.com/faqindex
My understanding of the answers to some of the FAQs:
http://tinyurl.com/affaqs
Short comments and feedback welcome on the blog, but for involved discussions, and if you are so inclined, please join the Actual Freedom mailing list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
