A Wednesday

A Wednesday, the film not only mirrored the times, but also the feeling and mental termoil and irritation of an everyday man in these relatively dark and mindless times of terrorism in the most subtle and stategically imagined way possible. It gives an effective message in the most implicit way. It evokes action and not just a justification of an action, which is what one is accustomed to. Righteous anger was never so deeply singnified before...I think. I love the film. The script seemed to me to be the outward expression of my inward thoughts. Even though the climax offers an element of surprise, which remains intact and in sync with the cinematography, the realisation of that element does not issue out of nowhere but is very much entwined with the understanding which is not instant, but very recognisable and basic.

Reflections....on thoughts about the lyrics.....

Lyrics of Teri aankhon mein humne kya dekha...sung by Chitra and Jagjit singh from the Album 'The latest'(1982)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c87oQt5HCd8

Chitra: Dil ke deewaron dar pe kya Dekha....bas tera naam hi likha dekha

Jagjit: Teri aankhon mein hamne kya dekha...kabhi katil kabhi khuda dekha

Chitra: Apni soorat lagi parayee si, jab kabhi humne aayena dekha.

Jagjit: Hai andaz tere rukhne ka, waqt ko bhi ruka ruka dekha.

Chitra: tere jaane mein aur tere aane me, humne sadiyoon ka fasala dekha.

Jagjit : Phir na aaya khayal jannat ka, jab tere ghar ka raasta dekha.

Beautiful thoughts indeed!!!! but so much can be read into them...submissive..joke..profoundness... lets see.

On the doors and windows of the heart I see your name plate. This implies possession of property. so one might feel as if one is placed on a pedestle here, but really is just a trophy pedestle then, isn't it, somewhat of a prized possession!!?

What do I see in your eyes, either a killer's violence or God's endearment?

My reflection feels like that of the other when I look in the mirror. That is an acceptance of Lacan's mirror stage, (a realisation of it) isn't it? ...internalising the other to the degree of losing self identity.

The way you stop, (I am presuming as one is walking...with grace) I see that time too slows down..or rather stops at successive intervals.

(This is followed by the thought...)

I can see an amazing time gap between moments when you come and go.

I mean what is funny here is that had these two lines the same referent(incidentally it didn't, as two lines are sung by Chitra Singh and the other two by Jagjit Singh), then it really does follow from the preceding premise. If time slows down or takes breaks as this person walks or stops then it only follows that there will be an apparent time gap between starting and end point. The whole speed time distance logic follows, you see if the literally poetryt or metaphor is taken too seriously.

I did not think about heaven as I walk towards the place you reside. and the supposition here is that this person thought about heaven on a regular basis.
The implication here is that the place is like heaven. but is it really! Doesn't it imply almost the opposite of that thought. .....then I can't think about heaven as I walk towards your the place where you reside... or then I wasn't thinking about going to heaven when I walk towards the place where you reside.

I mean look at the sheer power of interpretations here.

But trust me the gazal is sung so well, and by such a lovely voices that one cannot but just listen to it and not have these after thoughts.

Strength of an Emotion called Love or the Struggle for Strengthening ‘Enlightened Love’

Four years back, I wrote a paper Strength of Emotions as part of my Indian Philosophy Assignment mainly based on Vedanta Treatise, a book by A Parthasarthy. I found it kept in folds, submissively, among a stack of papers with a distinct smell, one inhales in flipping through the pages of an old library book. I smiled as I unfolded the paper, pressed it with my hands to smoothen the paper, as a mother would cuddle a small neglected child who locked himself up in dismay in a foetus posture in a dark room. I turned the pages, admired and congratulated myself on how beautiful my hand writing was once, in comparison to how horribly it has aged with me in time. I flipped a few pages carefully, looked at the last page to find Ma’am Makhija’s signature along side my conclusion which was a quote from Bhagavat Geeta, Chapter V, Verse 23. How appropriate I thought. It reminded me of Ma’am Makhija, her presence in our lives, her persona, her guidance, her charisma. I had got 19 out of 25. I must have written something good to deserve that or so I thought and I began reading in nostalgia. But soon I kept the nostalgia aside and realized or rather felt deja vu and it was not nostalgic, but one of becoming, of understanding, my now, myself, in the present moment, in the form of words of wisdom, I once wrote as a defense of Vedanta as a school of thought that didn’t preach emotionalism, but as one which thrives on not becoming a victim to it, is yet not devoid of emotions.

I read an excerpt from Oliver Goldsmith’s poem, The Deserted Village, I had so shamelessly copied. It reminded me of Raj Kapoor’s character in ‘Mera Naam Joker’, with a big clown face and the showman’s smile, big scary, photogenic smile behind the makeup covering his old fat wrinkled face in the movie. The image flashed. Just like that, it flashed, right after I read this…..

“To them his heart, his love, his grief were given,

But all his serious thoughts had rest in Heaven

As some tall cliff that lifts its awful form,

Swells from the vale, and midway leaves the storm,

Though round its breast the rolling clouds are spread,

Eternal sunshine settles on its head.”

One could only guess why this reminds me of that character – an actor, a showman, a joker, a clown, not anything close to a tall cliff with eternal sunshine despite the cloudy mid rib region, but may be his pot belly. His painted face, seems like an awful ‘face’ lift for a person whose life was an open diary, who shared his hopes and dreams with his audience, with expression, and disguised his vulnerability, his truths, his experiences, with that high voltage, oh now so haunting smile. I reflected, on the conclusion of this poem, the metaphor describing the stature of Oliver Goldsmith’s village preacher, on the actor who became unreal in the character of Mera Naam Joker, and reflecting on ‘Mera Naam Joker,’ it reminded me of clumsy me and I read these lines again, only to find them speak to me. I read on further.

‘To have emotions, therefore is a virtue’ I had mentioned back then in continuation with ‘but to allow emotions to interfere with intellectual judgement and awareness is spiritual weakness.’ The latter phrase made me mock at my self (My philosophy term paper was a theoretical discourse of Strength of Emotions!!) and other writers who had written about emotions like love, forgiveness, e.t.c. including philosophers like Plato (for full dialogues such as Symposium with an intellectual discussion on the topic) and Parthasarthy himself for exploring this topic in Vedanda Treatise. The former phrase issued the thought that virtue or no virtue, to have emotions is certainly to be human, and if knowledge is virtue and we are not all knowers of thyself, it made me think how human we are in totality, presupposing virtues to us ‘human’ animals. Anyways, what followed were not these thoughts in the paper I wrote back then, but a connection from Bhagavatgita, Krishna’s wisdom to rehabilitate Arjun’s intellect by slaying his emotions and reminding him of duty and Nishkarma Karma. It made sense to make that connection in an academic work I guess. I reminded myself that this was a paper on spiritual insight and mind control, so questioning the status of emotions as virtues was not appropriate just yet.
What followed was a Vedantic warning (like conditions apply* or parking at owner’s risk) supporting the sentence, ‘The quality and texture of each emotion would depend upon the direction it takes.' Emotions are like medicine, I had mentioned. They must be administered in proper dosage and are used to cure a disease. The same emotion, like the same medicine turns harmful, has poison written all over it if it is taken in concentrated form. Phrases like, ‘the direction it takes’, ‘concentrated form’ made me think about the authenticity of my paper, where I made a case for love as directionless, aimless, all emcompassing, everlasting, omniscient of them all. But then I corrected myself thinking that the direction oriented love, the concentrated form is not love but affection for the Vedandins or what is understood as ‘common love’ as opposed to ‘heavenly love’ in Phaedrus’ speech in Symposium.

What I read on further was in fact more profound and surprisingly more relatable, more profound and relatable than Derrida’s Nonsense about the logistics of Love and Forgiveness. Derrida had actually treated love, an emotion so deep and pure as frivolously as part of
Heidegger’s borrowed metaphysics.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj1BuNmhjAY

In a video I saw and I very proudly possess, Derrida is left speechless about talking about love, and wants to instead talk about death. But when pressed, he tries to bring in the who and what distinction in the context of love and babbles between the distinction of love of someone and love of some thing. Then he babbles further. Without even having a clue or view about love, he makes love a past tense in a hypothetical situation and questions the credibility of that love, something he hasn’t experienced, something he doesn’t even understand, something he probably understands as the affiliations of affection and not heavenly love, the directionless, harmonious, one in all, Vedantic love. But what is interesting to cite what he had to say, is that this is exactly what love is not. Derrida questions his hypothetical feelings. ‘Do I love someone for the absolute singularity of who they are?’ (if there is such an absolute singularity is a question itself, let alone a hypothetical one I think). ‘I love you because you are you.’ Derrida points his love, directs it, in the ‘supposed’ singularity. ‘Or do I love your qualities, your beauty, your intelligence?’ ‘Does one love someone or something about someone?’ Even for common love the question is just dumb. A person comes in a complete package, with the part and the whole, with the who and a what, it is just the way of looking at a person that such categories and such wh questions arises. I do not think that some things can be questioned or even if questioned so easily framed as questions, let alone answer them. It is embarrassing what Derrida had to say further. ‘The difference between the who and the what at the heart of love separates the heart’ (I mean Oh My GOD!) ‘It is often said that love is the movement of the heart’ (Maybe in some bad romantic high school comedy that is said, and I am not sure I have heard that, and I have watched many to know). Derrida questions, does my heart move because I love someone who is an absolute singularity or because I love the way that someone is? (So Derrida, Love is the movement of the heart and the movement is explained or meant to be explained by the loving the way someone is, as one of the option, splendid mistake there!)

Interestingly Vedanta can answer Derrida’s ambiguities about the movement of the heart and tell Derrida that he is not really talking about love, but something that Vedanta strongly considers to be diametrically opposite to love, only because it is.

According to Derrida, Love starts with a type of seduction or attraction. Inversely love is disappointed or dies as one comes to realise the other person doesn’t merit our love, the other person is not this or that (as one thought not one person to be, but as this or that one was attracted to initially). So at the death of love it appears that one stops loving another, (again he talks about death of love and appearance of its stoppage) not because of who they are but because they are such and such. This goes on to say that Derrida’s conception of hypothysed past tense love is not that of a person but that of an object. This is to say (and please tell me how again, specially Derrida’s explanation started with ‘this and that’ and died in appearances at ‘this or that’) that the history of love, the heart of love, is divided between the who and the what. With such a short summary on Love (and a bad one at that) Derrida moves to the question of being, of ‘to be’ not understanding how love and being are actually synonymous if understood really. And Vedanta tells us how, at the same time telling us how to not fall prey to a duplication of love, a bad copy, if not of Derrida’s wit because he slipped at many places.

Love is nothing like what Derrida babbles about. I say this with more confidence reading on what vibrated across in the paper I was reading.

Love is being harmonious with one and all. Love means realising your oneness or identity with the other, with the world. The people of the world are like different parts of one’s physical body. To maintain harmony in your body every part of I must consider itself one with the whole. Similarly you must, or rather you feel and realise your unity with your fellow beings, oneness with the entire universe, then you are in love. You are perfect the moment that you are in harmony with nature. (And here I would like to add a little bit using metaphors of the heart.) No one said that this harmony is not going to be painful or excruciatingly hurtful. This is where the clown, Oliver Goldsmith Preacher comes in, with a smile and as strong as a tall cliff to stand erect in the face of all storm. Heart if not a center of love, is certainly a pumping organ which pumps blood throughout the body and perfection of human body requires that the heart ‘beats’. Interesting choice of words there. The heart gets a constant beating in an attempt to survive and attain harmony with the body. Whether the heart wants to beat or not, wants to pump or not even important, the fact is that it just does or the system fails. We just love, whether we want to or not, that is not an option, and love is required to keep it together.

The common complaint is that Vedanta teaches renunciation of love, it teaches indifference. This is not true. What people call love is far from true love or rather truth as love is truth and consciousness, sat cit anand. The concept of love, the Derridian Concept for instance is distorted. The much talked about love is nothing but personal attachment. All personal attachments limit you, they make you dependent, addicted, they make you fall. People say rightly, “You have fallen in love.” Vedanta says one rises in love and wants one to give up this clinging, selfish personal attachment which passes off as love. But this is not to say that one must discard true love.

A man of perfection according to Vedanta is saturated with love or is love infinity. He is likened to a child. The child is all love. It has no motives, no desires, no personal attachments initially. It is the embodiment of pure love, not the lover, but love itself. This explains why the world adores a child. We need to be that child by renouncing personal selfishness and attachments and purifying ourselves of motives and desires and returns and expectations. This may seem idealistic but we need to be that child, we need to stop growing up, that way at least but be in sync with ourselves, our spiritual side which cannot be but like a child.

Attachment is the perversion of love. When we attach ourselves to a particular object or being (here is where Derrida’s who and what can get classified), we automatically detach ourselves from the rest. Attachment is not possible without relative detachment after all. Since the child has no attachment its love is universal. As the child grows the youth falls in love. The youth likes someone in particular. Relatively he develops indifference for others. Parents, brothers, sisters, neighbours, companions, become a burden on him. He segregates himself from all of them. True love is lost. Instead he engenders hatred and jealousy towards every hindrance. All that he desires, craves is his lady love. Such love blinds him to everyone else, everything else. Here again we see a subject object distinction is seen between a lover and love. When people say ‘he is in love’, but actually he is hating the whole world. So when Vedanta says, ‘give up love’ it does not mean to become indifferent, it only means ‘give up hatred.’

(Here is where Nietzsche’s quotes of a woman’s love can be understood) Correct or not (and I know – not) Nietzsche does explain that as a cause for Women’s slavery and tyranny. He says, ‘ In a woman a slave and a tyrant have long been concealed. For that reason woman is not capable of friendship: she knows only love. In a woman’s love is injustice and blindness towards all that she does not love ( here understood as attachment). And in the enlightened love of women too, there is still the unexpected attack and the lightening and night, along with the night.’ Of course these quotes must be understood as meant for all humans animals, and not just Nietzsche’s cows in my vocabulary.

And it is the unexpected attacks the lightening and the night which bothers me, which makes even ‘enlightened love’ human and devastating. It is a smile of Mera Naam Joker, of a clown of a person, an open book who shares and celebrates his pitfalls as jokes. It is the ‘I am fine’ after a clumsy fall which makes me wonder if I am used to bear the pain or pull up a show for the world to see and laugh for fear of being weak and vulnerable or crying in the no tears grown up adult mature world or genuine acceptance of the excruciatingly mundane monotonous harmony of the beating of the heart that runs my system. Is it the real me, who hinds behind conflicting emotions, love and attachment, or an act to be strong? Maybe because it is easier to laugh along with others when one gets up after a clumsy fall, no matter how hard it hurts, and it hurts. When a woman doesn’t cry in the mist of those who do, as there is no point to celebrate dehydration of salty water along with a headache, and smiles instead, is it the ego which stops her, or enlightenment? Is that smile, is that cliff, necessary or natural(intuitive), authentic or an act?

Good song on a good day for a good day

IT'S A GOOD DAY

Peggy Lee

Yes, it's a good day for singin' a song,

And it's a good day for movin' along;

Yes, it's a good day, how could anything go wrong,

A good day from mornin' till night.

Yes, it's a good day for shinin' your shoes,

And it's a good day for losin' the blues;

Ev'rything to gain and nothin' to lose,

'Cause it's a good day from mornin' till night.

I said to the sun, "good mornin', sun.

Rise and shine, today"

You know you've gotta get goin'

If you're gonna make a showin'

And you know you've got the right of way

'Cause it's a good day for payin' your bills;

And it's a good day for curin' your ills,

So take a deep breath and throw away your pills;

'Cause it's a good day from mornin' till night.

We MUST not study ourselves while having an experience or does our condition entail that we DON'T or CAN'T study ourselves during experincing?

I loved watching the film called Stardust(2007) where the narration starts with a philosopher's quote,(probably Thales) and ends with '...and they lived happily ever after'.

The quotation is about star gazing and man (are we human because we gaze at the star or do we gaze at the star because we are human?) and the movie is about star gazing at man. Incidentally, and surprisingly, it boils down to another quotation of another philosopher Neitzsche ' We love live not because we are used to living but because we are used to loving.'
That is what the Fallen Star Yvaine, (who fell because she was hit by a ruby necklace which was significant for the heirs of Stormhold to claim the thrown) says that sustains her gazing at earth from the skies.

'I know a lot about love', says a star, a fallen star. 'I have seen it. Seen centuries and centuries of it. It is the only thing that made watching over (your) the world bearable. All those walls...of pains, lies, hate. They made me want to turn away and never look down again. But to the way mankind loves.' 'You can search the furthest reaches of the world and never find anything more beautiful', vouches the star.

Love is what makes life worth living.

Another thought in the movie brings what Micheal de Montaigne had to say regarding one star gazing philosopher in his essay Apology for Raymond Sebond, on knowledge and man. I quote:

" I feel grateful to the Miselian wench who, seeing the philosopher Thales continually spending his time in contemplation of the heavenly vault and always keeping his eyes raised upward, put something in his way to make him stumble, to warn him that it would be time to amuse his thoughts with things in the clouds when he had seen to those at his feet. Indeed she gave him good counsel to rather look at himself than to the sky. For as Democritus says at the mouth of Cicero, 'No one looks underfoot but at the stars.' " But," and this is the key thought of Montaigne here, in this context and in every context, that " our condition makes the knowledge of what we have in our hands as remote from us and as far above the clouds as that of the stars.' Ironically, in the movie, a youth named Trisan promises to gift the fallen star to a girl named Vivian on her birthday for exchange of her hand in marriage, overlooking the possibility that his true love was shining in front of him, the fallen star. Yvaine resists initially and remarks sarcastically (when Tristan has told her that he intends to make her a present to Victoria) "But of course! Nothing says "romance" like a kidnapped injured woman!" Of course the happily ever after demands other than killing the evil witch Lamia who wished to tear out Yvaine 's heart out and eat it for everlasting beauty. So Trisan finally realises that, and tells Yvaine that their captain friend, captain Shake Spear(Robert De Nero) had whispered in his years that 'Your true love is right in front of you' and that the captain was right. Now philosophers are not that lucky. And so continues Montaigne ' As Socrates says in Plato, whoever meddles in philosophy may have the same reproach made to him as that woman makes to Thales, that he sees nothing of what is in front of him. For every philosopher is ignorant of what his neighbour is doing, yes, and of what he himself is doing, and does not know what they both are, whether beasts or men.'
....'We see indeed that the finger moves, that the foot moves; that some parts stir of themselves without our leave, and that others we move by our command; that a certain apprehension engenders a blush, a certain other pallor. Our imagination acts only on the spleen, another on the brain, one makes us laugh, another weep. Another paralyzes and stuns all our senses, and arrests the movements of our limbs. At one object, the stomach rises, at another a certain path lowers down.

But how a spiritual impression can cut such a swath in a massive and solid object, and the nature of the relation and connection between these wonderful springs of action, no man has ever known(but feels still). All these things are indeterminate by reason, and concealed in the majesty of nature, says Pliny; and Saint Augustine: the way in which soul clings to bodies is completely wonderful, and cannot be understood by man, and this is man himself. And yet we never doubt this......

....the reason why we doubt anything hardly is that we never test our common impressions. We never probe the base, where the faults and weakness lies, we dispute only about the branches. We do not ask whether this is true but whether it has been understood this way or that.
....It is very easy to build on accepted foundations what you please, for according to the law and ordering of this beginning, the rest of the parts of the beginning are easily done, without contradictions. By this path we find our reasons well founded and argue with great ease.'

Perhaps thats where we are wrong, to reason everything....the way in which soul clings to bodies is completely wonderful, and cannot be understood by man. This is where sophia stops and philo begins! This is where the philosopher sees the stone, probably even picks it up and keeps it in his pocket, and moves on star gazing. He looks at the Starry heavens above and the moral law within and gets back to business!!

The hope then is to continue to love live and to see it, welcome it and accept it, and not search for it in the skies when the star which gazed back at human confesses to see the way mankind loves, is all that made the star NOT 'wanting to turn away and never look down again'.



"Rule The World"

You light, the skies up above me
A star, so bright you blind me
Don't close your eyes
Don't fade away
Don't fade away

Yeah you and me we can ride on a star
If you stay with me girl, we can rule the world
Yeah you and me we can light up the sky
If you stay by my side, we can rule the world.

If walls break down, I will comfort you
If angels cry, oh I'll be there for you
You've saved my soul
Don't leave me now
Don't leave me now

Yeah you and me we can ride on a star
If you stay with me girl, we can rule the world
Yeah you and me we can light up the sky
If you stay by my side, we can rule the world.

All the stars are coming out tonight
They're lighting up the sky tonight
For you
For you
All the stars are coming out tonight
They're lighting up the sky tonight
For you
For you,

Yeah you and me we can ride on a star
If you stay with me girl, we can rule the world
Yeah you and me we can light up the sky
If you stay by my side, we can rule the world.

All the stars are coming out tonight
They're lighting up the sky tonight
For you
For you
All the stars are coming out tonight
They're lighting up the sky tonight
For you
For you

Truth is my religion and ahimsa is the only way of its realisation -Gandhi. But is 'truth' even compatible with 'ahimsa' if not contradictory?

Facts interfere with values…..the way to know facts is not the way to know values...then what makes us moral?

Help me out here.

Assumption : Moral sense is a sense of right and what is wrong. Right?

Question: Truth and Ahimsa are they really compatible being in the inherent space of moral correctness, which is the sense of right? Also can we associate the right sense with rights (as in something which we are bound to have and cherish…..like fundamental rights or human rights)?

I want to make a space for these questions with what I am going to argue rather stupidly. I hope that it makes some sense though, even if not moral.

Truthfulness is a virtue, and it would(and it does) certainly turn into an imperative following Kant’s general maxim. Let us see why? In layman terms:

1. One should always be truthful (to others)?

(Just knowing what is right is not fine in ethics, action is mandatory)

2. One should always be not none truthful…that is one should not lie. (to others).

From what I am going to argue, the condition changes…..in the above mentioned two sentences.

It should rather be that one should be truthful to oneself and one should not lie to others. But more often than ever the interaction space forces the conditions in such a way that it is hard to be truthful to oneself without also being truthful to others. More on that later.

However based on the general understanding (which will later create a problem) the fact that the value of truth is sustainable via the other is most obvious when one poses the question:

Why should one be truthful?

And if it be permitted that I answer this question with another question while debating and then try to answer that I question:

Why should one NOT tell the truth?

The condition of not comes in, seemingly out of nowhere.

But I want to argue that if the latter question is answered with a because…..then, it comes out of the empirical, out of stupidity of people around us, of the mad fools who live in Plato’s cave and are in self deception and wish to remain that way and throw stones at people who try to tell them. And that they can do this, because each one of those stupid people have the right to ‘self realisation’ but you know what they are too slow and too dumb to get there, which is why truthfulness is a associated with a moral sense. But anyways…….

Similarly let us look at Ahimsa, NON violence.

It is not GOOD to hurt others. Again let us question:

Why should one NOT hurt others?

Answer with question: Why should one hurt others in the first place?

(Again we see it is the negation of the first question in the argumentation)

Why should one not practice Ahimsa?

Now if we let the structure of these obvious interrogations which comes to one’s mind, be intact and change the content to something relatively simpler, something which concerns a child and then something which concerns an adult’s freewill.

It is not good to have candy.

A child should not eat candy (or too much actually).

Why is it not good to have candy?

Why should one have candy in the first place?

Now there are reasons why it is not good to have candy…..it spoils the teeth, but barring that when the question of choice presents itself, then it becomes mandatory ethically to answer it first. This is the case presented for moral policing in the case of smoking, isn’t it, one of free will, despite the obvious answer to the first question which must be acceptable but it clearly isn’t. Otherwise the second question will not be asked.

Smoking is injurious to health. Be that as it may!

When someone uses the imperative: You should not smoke.

Why should one not smoke? (Injurious! Da-ah!)

Answer the question with the question then,

Why should one smoke in the first place?

Life is about making choices (if not living with them but with their results that are so volatile), whether right or wrong but usually there is often an answer, reasonable or not, and as philosophers we try to look for ‘adequate’ answers because there can always be questions on questions overlooking the answers in a USELESS debate like the ones I have mentioned.

Coming back to the questions which need to be answered are about Ahimsa and Truth. Here the choice is of moral one, where right and wrong matters and the answers should not only be adequate but reasonable.

Why should one not tell the truth?

Why should one not practice Ahimsa?

These questions bother me Oh So much!

Why should one not tell the truth? The truth about truth is that it HURTS. So we lie. And not just metaphorically. Look at what Happened to Socrates.

If my answer to the first question is right then Ahimsa is incompatible with truth and this is why one should not practice ahimsa.

So which imperative do we pick, which do we place aside?

That truth hurts, one does not have to look any further away than Plato’s cave as I had mentioned. It hurts the person living in self perception, and consequently it hurts the truth teller.

The Philosopher enters the cave and Neo enters the Matrix, and when he tries to initially tell others that they are living a lie, no one is going to take it lightly if what is told is meant seriously. In a funny sit com a genius physicist gets fired from his workplace because he tells his boss that he is not a real scientist. His mother tells him, ‘I know you are right, but people do not like to hear that’

Socrates told people that the virtues like piety which they had been holding on to, were all wrong, by reducing their arguments to absurdity. But he never gave an answer, if he did really know one, he never told the truth, because he wanted people to ‘know thyself’.

But considering that self realization is so important and that Socrates did infact know that he did not know, then why tell people anything. Why be truthful to OTHERS? To those others who are fools and are not ready to come out of the cave. They have to come out in steps, and they take baby steps. I mean the Republic’s Philosopher ruler is 55 years old, that is when most people almost open their retirement funds here.

In A Few Good Men when Lt Cathy gets Col Jessup to say. Give me answers. I think I am entitled. Col Jessup says. You think you are entitled? You can’t handle the truth….and then the legendary speech which made movie moments. Son, we live in a world with boundaries that need to be guarded, who is going to guard them…you….you use words like honour, courage as a punch line, we use them as a life defending something…….

And while Jessup happens to be the BAD guy is so far as he gave orders for discipline that resulted in death of a person, the Himsa he committed was in accordance with his conception of TRUTH…..the one Lt Cathy could not handle. And so in the movie he lied, he is the bad guy. Or is he really. Truth hurts and so we freaking lie.

I mean who can handle the truth. The closest one gets to truth is by seeing that it is certainly true that they are wrong...because....of the consequences of one's actions, or argumentation flaws.

But even if the argumentation is solid, the intention is good, and one makes all the right choices, destiny takes over or so it seems when we dont get to that second step of what truth is. We learn what truth is not, but never what truth is once we figure what is wrong. Why is it so hard to figure out what is right when we already figure out what is wrong? Where is the hold up. Anyways....

If we have to be truthful to oneself and not to others, then why is it that something in us does not allow us to live in peace if the truth is not told? Why can’t we live in solace? Is truth a moral virtue for others or an egoistic way to let out our thoughts, and in so long as it is our thoughts, how much of epistemological baggage can they be given as truths in the first place?

I am sending these queries to the bright minds out there, or maybe just a void. Do these questions make any sense? Is there a dilemma, the way I see it? Or am I the real dumb one here? Or are others? And if there is, then why aren’t others bothered by such questions? We live with these questions everyday of our lives and there seems to be no answers, because of the dilemma. Or are we just so busy living with our belief systems, superficially assenting and allowing others to have their views as long as there is no conflict and are escapists when there is one, because to actually voice our opinions would be like giving a despotic but brilliant speech by Jack Nicolson in a Few Good Men? Are we all scared to be bad, is that the reason we want to hold on to both Truth and Ahimsa when they do not really seem to be compatible?

Is it ironical considering my query regarding truth and ahimsa not going together for someone like Socrates or Gandhi that in the movie Satya(Truth) there is actually a song indicating violence because of someone's ideas(even if u take the notion of a philosopher's suggestive truth or relativization of truth..Anekantvada and all that jazz...):

'Goli maaro bhejee mein, ki bheeja shor karta hai, kallu mama'
(shoot the brains out since the brain makes too much of noise..its too loud!!).

I do not think that Ram Gopal verma had this in mind, or did he? I don't know, never watched the film.

But on a serious note, Is anybody really bad? What is GOOD? I am just so tired and I can’t seem to solve any puzzle but just weave riddles out of nothing and I do not seem to find any answers, and that is depressing. But while that is depressing, what is even sadder is that people around us are so dumb, so deluded with all the knowledge in the world ironically, that it is hard to sustain a conversation which makes ‘sense’, moral or otherwise for more than 5 minutes and after 3 minutes you are really hoping to go home and watch some good movie to at least get entertained.

What's the message in the bottle in the act of putting it in the ocean?

‘When one chooses for oneself, one chooses for everyone.’

This is the default of ‘choice’ which is based on the presumption of a conception of morality which begins from false epistemological premises to begin with. Bilgrami sites this with resorting to Mill’s argument in section III in his essay ‘Gandhi the Philosopher’.

www.ahimsaonline.org/downloads/akeel_bilgrami.pdf

Truth itself is part of an existential crisis, as Sartre would take to be the case. Being in itself is something we strive for, it is something which can never be attained. Truth, considering this, is something that cannot be attained in so long it is seen in the form of Ding en sich , the thing in itself. Kant’s epistemological premises will also hold it to be the case that it is something our faculties does not allow to investigate. Then what is the point of the Imperatives at all? What is the semantic meaning of conduct? It has none. It is the message in the bottle out at the sea, as Bilgrami assents to be the case. His idea springs from the disagreement or rather the misreading of Gandhi by Sumit Sarkar’s Modern India where it is said that ‘The search for truth was the goal of Life, and as no one could ever be sure of having attained the truth, use of violence to enforce one’s view on it is sinful.’ (I would have added the use of violence or non violence to enforce one’s view is sinful in so far both the option follow logically from the previous part of the sentence.)

He analysis Mill’s argument as follows:

Premise 1:Our past beliefs have often turned out to be false.

Premise 2: This is ground for thinking that our present opinions may be wrong.

Conclusion: We should(my emphasis) be tolerant of dissent from current option.

Premise 1 is based on Premise 2, in so far as premise 1 is based on a present judgment. Premise 2 cannot then follow from Premise 1. That is what Bilgrami pointed out. Now while that is quite alright, I want to point out that assuming that there were in fact no problem in the premises, ‘the-should’ condition in the premises cannot really follow. It entails that choice of an action is based on some understanding of the truth. It assumes what Bilgrami plans to deny as highlighted in the objectives of this essay: To deny that there is a link between moral sense and moral judgment. It confirms to Clifford’s view that actions should not be based on unjustified beliefs which in fact does not deny the correlation between moral sense and moral judgment. The link that is to be denied is that actions are based on beliefs, not that beliefs are based on actions. Bilgrami in his paper fails to see the distinction of where the two spring from and denies both, presenting a confident exemplary action in the process in section IV.

What Bilgrami finds of philosophical interest is Gandhi’s moral sense, and his denial of the assumed connection between moral sense and moral judgment. A distinction or contrast like any classification presumes the ground for classification. The ground here is of action. That’s where Moral sense springs from, be it that of Gandhi or Bilgrami or of anyone else. My point is that there can in fact be no valid grounds for anyone’s action, so the point of interpreting them to have any basis is in fact incoherent. To assume that there is a moral sense when a random action is performed is also an assumption which must be denied. I deny this assumed link. I might pick up a glass of water in a certain way, I might have a five star using a folk and a knife. It will be an action that will be seen by some, in case I do not perform it in isolation. It is one’s choice, not one’s moral choice, it yet becomes exemplary and not necessarily condescending.

I may choose to visit a sick friend, not because she is sick necessarily. She may see it as an act of affection, I may just see it as an act in retrospect. Other friends may see it as an example or as a condescending act in so far as they do not visit that friend. The act is not moral, the act is not necessarily condescending, it is an act none the less, an act one chooses to perform for oneself, yet it has various repercussion on the environment, which are just accidental at best in so far a necessity can never be granted to random acts, in so far as the one that performs such acts does not choose to set them as standards.

It’s once choice of existence, not of essence, in the world of Sartre, it is being for itself, not being in itself. In so far as it does not have an essence, it can not turn into a principle for others, even though there is no denying that it may accidentally lead others to follow that choice, solely out of interest, or boredom, or curiosity of there being an essence to it, or the moral misconception which has survived throughout the ages ‘When one chooses for oneself, one chooses for everyone.’ This is led by an adventitious phrase, ‘Do un to others as others would do un to you.’ It is something which even Sartre talks about in Existentialism and Humanism. One would think that he would be smarter. But alas! A man is a man! He strives on assumptions, on looking for the Ding en sich. He does not know how to live otherwise. Sad little man!!

The world is filled with examples, confident ones and also those which are less confident. If actions are to be chosen on the basis of those examples which conform to the fashion of blatant acceptance of ‘When one chooses for oneself, one chooses for everyone’ one must questions who decides which actions are more confident than others. Confidence of action is also a valuation, just as principles are. Confidence is an attribute of highlighting. There may be a number of similar colour balls, yet all might be different. If one glows, it would be termed special among others. That’s how I draw a distinction between things being different and things being special. Confidence in performing an action presumes a sense of assertiveness in it, which makes it special and not just different. And such an assertion either presumes some truth as its basis or alternately it is the subjectivity of the observer to choose that example to be more confident, hence more assertive, which is already decided upon based on what one really wants to do. There can be no other option. The first then is no different from the notion of principles to be followed in so far a mark of truth establishes the essence of the confidence even if it is called an example. The second conforms to Sartre’s belief that when one does seek counsel, from the mere idea then one has already made one’s choice. Then the example becomes redundant.

‘Confident example’ says Bilgrami instead of condescending principles, but while the first option renders confident weak, the second renders the example useless. And so, by virtue of this fact, he fails to maintain the distinction which he wanted to maintain, which I think it is necessary to maintain. The problem is that it springs from the false basis of moral sense which has been assumed from antiquity to contemporary society i.e. ‘When one chooses for oneself, one chooses for everyone.’ A correction for Bilgrami would entail then a distinction between an action and moral action. This lies in the subsequent question where does morality spring from? Why are we moral? We are moral beings because we are rational being, some might say (in fact some do say). But how can we be moral being in so far morality is based on action and is reflected by actions and we have no idea where does moral conduct spring from. How can we be moral and not know what morality is? Is that why Socrates resorted to reduction ad absurdum in search for definitions of virtues and said that ‘I know that I do not know’ himself when questioned? If one has to believe in there being what Darwin calls a ‘struggle for existence’ which includes the interdependency of species and individuals to form a society, then within the society lies morality too, and so there has to be a necessary struggle for the existence of morality. The struggle for existence though used in a large and metaphorical sense as Darwin confessed in ‘Struggle for Existence’[1], includes dependence of one being on the other, including not only the life of the individual but success in leaving progeny. However, it does form a basis of Darwin’s concept of Natural Selection. In so far as there is a necessity, a need to be good, for survival, one is in fact inherently selfish if moral and help is derogatory. We help others knowing that it would not be enough. I would like to believe, that in fact we help precisely because we know that it will not be enough. If it were, one would not help. Morality then seen from convention is inherently selfish. True ‘Moral sense’ might include in hopeless devotion, a useless unnecessary belief, a belief without an essence, without the principles, with an unconditionality. The agent is not an unconditional host then for being a host comes with conditions. The agent is an unconditional meddler or a trespasser, and trespassing, is not required for the other, it has no conditions and it can conform to the ‘un - conditionality’ condition and yet be an agent. The ground of this unconditional meddler lies in moral ambiguity, which can only be cleared if one succeeds to answer: ‘Where does Morality or moral conduct (as opposed to mere conduct) spring from?’ I do not think that this question has been answered. This is not to say that it will never be answered or that it can’t. It just happens to be the case that, it hasn’t been answered. Is looking for an answer as futile as hoping someone to find the message in the bottle out in the ocean? What's the 'message' in the bottle behind the act of putting it in the ocean? Is there any?

---

[1] Chapter 3, Origin of Species(1859), Charles Darwin, Buntan Books, reprint 1999, pg 54

what do you do when you forget 'how' to say Hello?

It's a different thing when one forgets to greet another person when the situation asks for it, you know when you forget to say 'hello'. Its quite a different thing I realize right now, when you forget how to say 'hello'. In the former case you can make up for one's absent mindedness, but in the other case the very inability becomes a condition, a prolonged habit. The barrier is one of the inability of being comprehended, maybe due to adhering to a different scenario of social set up for a very long time. I stepped into philosophical circle some 5 years back as a naive student, and I guess I still am naive in so far as I have not really stepped out of the circle yet, and I don't think I can, nor do I consciously want to.

One can only consume and be consumed in the depth of the ocean when one chooses not to float but drown in it.

Today I attended the last of the lecture series on 'knowledge' given by the great scholar Prof Miri. Even though it was directed at a non philosophical audience, it was a high point for me. I attended a lecture after so long. Prof Miri was articulate and his words were simple and easily comprehensible and was directed at an audience which seemed very much awed and attended the lecture because they really wanted to. But one or two questions that were raised at the end of the lecture led me to believe that they were raised because they had totally missed the essence of the lecture, of the thought that was being projected in the best articulated way as possible. Prof Miri had used a Strawsonian distinction just to adapt it to his framework in the context of the lecture. It was a distinction he explained at length and linked it with his own thoughts. But the very asking of the question depicted that only the first part was comprehended, and the major portion was missed out, the essence of the lecture actually. Sir clarified the point too in his reply. I was not annoyed at someone missing the point really, (I have a tendency to get impatient on such matters, even though I might not show it, and even though it is not my position to get that way) but for the first time, I viewed my world from the eyes of an outsider, an outsider to the philosophical circle who was awed by the subject, in spite of not being able to comprehend it. An outsider that was me some time back, and parts of which still remain when I can't comprehend the works of great minds just because I am not acquainted or eligible enough to read that work. Those looks, those reactions, those mannerism are becoming more and more familiar to me now too. When I speak to people from outside of the circle, I see a polite smile, and an awed look which says, 'thats quite a thought actually! impressive!' but I do not think that I make my self clear, I do not feel that my thoughts, the gist of it is comprehended by the other person.

Maybe I don't say it right, or talk to fast and too much, or actually make no sense, or the other person is not really interested to listen to it, or does not have the time. But today, it dawned to me, that an amazing scholar could not convey his thoughts completely to a very intelligent audience either. Maybe its not the subjective so much, may be its not just me, but the content. But who is to blame for that. I think both the parties are equally innocent and it is no crime really to not understand another person. But isn't the whole point of talking: trying to communicate. And communication requires to speak the same language. I think that in the past five years my communication with the outside world has been reduced to a minimum, in so far as the outside world is composed of people not accustomed to philosophical thoughts all the time. I just don't speak the same language. I speak in the same natural language as the person I am interacting with, lets say Hindi or English, but am I really speaking the same language? I don't think so. Being silent is not an option either. There is no communication there, not even an attempt at it.

I am no scholar, I don't profess to be one, not yet, I don't think that I am very intelligent either, but over the past 5 years I have stepped deeper and deeper, thinking that maybe the outside link is still established as I do breath in spite of being drowned in my own little world, and somewhere I lost sight of the fact that I my conversation, the quality of it, has reduced with the outside world, the otherwise real world. It is not that I do not talk to people from outside the circle, I do. I talk to my family and few friends from non philosophy days. But nothing of that seems too significant. The emotive part does and is of significance but nothing beyond it. And I guess this feeling is also mutual. Nobody really wants to understand me. Not because no one cares but over the years my thoughts have become me actually. Philosophy, this discipline is what I worship. I mean I also criticize it but it is very personal to me. Even the number of people I interact with on a daily basis are somewhere related to the discipline, they have all been to the beach, so to say, to say the very least. My life centers around it. I don't think I have a personal life outside of it anymore. It is safe because in this world, my world everyone is included and still excluded but it is still very real, the rush of adrenaline, one gets when a thought presents itself, the stimulating desire to understand, to resolve the mystery of questions unanswered, it is all very real. However, nothing I say seem to have any significance at all. It is either not significant, crazy ramping of an ideal person, or someone who is about to touch something profound but not there yet in all my little worlds and circles really.

It is like in a naive moment, I stepped into the Plato's cave in search of knowledge, and the search of knowledge itself seems to be restricted in a cave of its own. While I may think that I might find some answers to questions I seek, I think my life is as naive as it was 5 years ago, in so far as the answers to those questions are and will perhaps be sought in all probability in that philosophical circle, because outside it, in the process of this search, I have just forgotten how to say HELLO to the people outside. That communication is just not established, even when I try. Maybe I don't try enough because somewhere I don't want to. I think that sanity requires me to step out of this cave, still continue the search (the two seems mutually exclusive), but I just don't know how. As far as communication goes, I find it hard to communicate within my circle, where I have sustained myself for the past 5 years, and also outside of it, where I spent the rest of my life in oblivion as well, because I was just not interested. Its just that I enjoy trying to communicate on one side, so it is easier to make an effort, as far as the other side is concerned I just do not care to even make that effort and I have started to place that world in the cave of blind people, just because I am blind to them. And when I reflect about this before posting it, I realise that there is nothing more stupid than a search of truth in a world of solipsism, where one starts and ends with Descartes borrowed thesis, the basic proposition, 'I think, therefore I am!'

One day at a time, Sweet Jesus!!!!

I hope that this hymn sounds familiar.......

One day at a time, Sweet Jesus
I'm only human, I'm just a woman
help me believe in what I could be
and all that I am, show me the stairway
I have to climb, Lord for my sake
teach me to take one day at a time.

One day at a time, sweet Jesus.
That's all I'm asking from you
just give me the strength to do everyday
what I have to do.
Yesterday's gone sweet Jesus,
and tomorrow may never be mine.
Lord help me today, show me the way
One day at a time.

Do you remember when you walked among men?
well, Jesus you know if you're looking below
it is worse now than then
cheating and stealing, violence and crime,
so for my sake, teach me to take
one day at a time.

One day at a time, sweet Jesus
that's all I'm asking from you
just give me the strength to do
everyday what I have to do.
Yesterday's gone sweet Jesus
and tomorrow may never be mine
Lord help me today show me the way
one day at a time.

This was the hymn which the school intercom used to play every alternate day, never understood why then was much too young, and in later years took it for granted, loved the singer's voice though...I guess it didn't apply then...but if it does apply now...One day at a time, so far so good. Call me an agnostic, but what about tomorrow.... sweet Jesus!!!!

Every time an exam gets over, priorities change, but this time I find the days after exams so scary, change becomes the priority. Why??

And it may be noted, that everything in this hymn is just fine, really. Facts actually: I'm only human, I'm a woman(what does just a woman mean anyways?) and I am a believer so stairways and climbing becomes a little redundant unless the back of my mind, one is thinking that God will pull the ladder away, which requires a confirmation of being a believer. Anyways, moving on....the strength to do everyday what I have to do? Unless one is climbing the mountain or doing something really really bad, which requires strength to live with oneself, strength is pretty much there for everyday life.

The only worry then there is that can be abstracted from this hymn is Yesterday's gone sweet Jesus, and tomorrow may never be mine.
Forget tomorrow never being mine, but the key point is that :

yesterday's gone!!! Its gone, sweet jesus, it will never come back!!!! Why ask God to help us move on unless we also consider Sweet jesus to be the constant from those yesterdays and an accomplish to the crimes to end our lives of those murdered moments, which at times we cherished and at times we hated.

Life as we know it never comes back!!! And while that is fine, at times like these when instead of priorities changing, change becomes the priority, what can be done?
What can anyone (no offense, sweet Jesus, its a whole self preservation thing!) do besides trying to walk blindfolded but carefully and being watchful, precisely because we know that we enter into the unforeseen future with blindfolds to begin with, just hoping to not fall or tumble into a pothole , hoping of not to make the same mistakes but to make new ones each time we try to get a sneak peak to get an insight into the future in the game that must be played blindfolded?

For days like those when an optimistic God says like the slogan Cyrus Barrocha used to say in pepsi advertisment 'tera number bhi aayega' and one keeps the hope intact only to find to have collected 756 crowns, to find that 'number nahi aaya' and 'complaint' that yesterday when you said tomorrow will be mine, but then when tomorrow becomes yesterday, yesterday's gone!! how does one keep the faith?

Does one believe in an optimistic God, or walk blindfolded on Razor's edge? Anyways, the hymn is nice, I wish I had it in audio. And I really wish that after so much of studying within a discipline like Philosophy, I could understand the meaning of this hymn or at any rate try to understand what happened in movies like 'Dil toh pagal hai? Never understood that, and trust me, I tried. Never understood it. What happened there?

The psycho genesis of the Indian Audiences towards Bollywood

The psycho genesis of the Indian Audiences towards Bollywood:

It’s the cocoon of comfort and denial which ‘Happily ever after(s)’ maintain.

‘The key to surviving surgical internship is denial. We deny that we are tired, we deny that we are scared, we deny how badly we want to succeed and most importantly we deny that we are in denial.’ This is a citation transcribed from Season 2 Episode 4 of a popular Prime time American TV Show.

What is most important for the overworked, tired, Indian audiences in the climate of professional competition then is precisely the blatant acceptance of this denial. This is assented to the fact that Om Shanti Om with its worldview of ‘Happily Ever After(s)’ succeeded to run parallel to the mentality of its audiences. Om Shanti Om was not so much of a movie about the movies or about one song with enormous number of Guest Stars, than it was about the usage of movies. The jokes weren’t funny and would be categorized by many, (not necessarily what is denoted as smart audiences, but the masses as well) in the rank of PJs. The ones which were really funny, offended the sentiments of many, for instance Manoj Kumar, India’s Pride. The plagiarism jokes, like ‘Dosti mein Thank you nahi hota’ came instinctively to those who were well versed with the popular movies, not everybody. The assumption is that most people have seen Suraj Barjatiya’s Maine Pyar Kiya, but those who haven’t seen it, could not follow it or get the joke. The editing genius shown in Om Shanti Om was similar to that of Jaaneman . The comic over dramatization in the first half turns serious in the second half, but fails to bring out the same effect that Dil Chahata hai did which brought different emotions to the same dialogues in ‘the Proposal to Shalini(Preety Zinta). Repetition of ‘similar lines’ to dawn the effect of familiarity was over done as well, be it the essence of the film itself, that if the ending isn’t happy then it is not the end yet. Even though the song Jag Suna Suna Lage, renders to touch hearts perhaps in ‘Ekta Kapoor’s K serials’, there was in fact no chemistry between Shanti and Om, their romantic relationship depicting only a mere crush of a crazed fan. Over all, the movie could be completely trashed by the critics on more grounds than one. Sharukh Khan or King Khan made his presence felt, literally in every scene. He is the King of the Glamour world, he is here to stay and he appreciates to rule. All this is too evident in both the onscreen character and the off screen character as opposed to Amir Khan, who makes his presence felt even in his significant absences. In so far he lives up to the name ‘Tare Zameen Pe’. Considering these factors, even the Trump SRK card, according to me fails to account for the success of the film.

Perhaps the mystery of the box office success lies in the anticipation as well as the need of the audiences to see happy ever afters’, masala flicks, Govinda movies. The clear evidence of the same is that Sawaariya despite the graphic presentation, powerful story line, a venture of Star families, candy boy Ranbeer Kapoor, good and popular musical score, failed to appeal to the masses. What failed was not the story, but the anti-anticipated climax, Sartre’s existential hero, the effeminate male, weak enough not to fight back or win the girl over, strong enough to be contended with ‘punching away’ the misery. ‘What if Truth is a woman’ said Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil). ‘ She is a woman, she is always loves a man of work.’ He answers. I don’t that this is true at all, but that sure is the cliché even in the fantasy world, which is where I would also like to place Nietzsche’s understanding of women, in clichés, in the fantastic.

We want the world of movies to keep us in the denial of fantasies, of happily ever afters. Even though the aesthetic theory of sadharanikaran or generalization may make one relate to the existential character in Sawaariya, the truth is that one does not wish to make that relation. Bollywood is a playground for the Shah-Rukh Khans. They help create the fairy tale for its audiences, fractured fairy tales have to still make a place in this world of illusion, Shrek has to make its entry in this the psychological sphere of the demands of the audiences. We are not there yet.

Conclusion:

We live in the world of denial which provides the comfort of ‘happily ever after(s)’.

Many would jump to present proofs about how this conclusion is wrong, but everyone does know that they would also know in their hearts that they will be bullshitting for the truth lies in denial (and there is a reason for that as well which I do not wish to detail here). After all, why else would Brahman lie in Maya?

A tribute to memories and friends

'I felt overwhelmed by the uncertainty of what I had. I wasn't the same person anymore. I was living in some kind of horrific perpetual dream state yet somehow still able to interact without anyone knowing. Just going through motions automatic.' These are the thoughts of Hudson, a character of the film Numb (2007), in the context of a neurological condition called 'Depersonalisation'. However it is strange that I also relate to it after doing 5 years of Philosophy in the best years of my life. The same description can be understood in the light of what DJ had to say in Rang De Basanti, where student life at Delhi University provides that Dream state, still being very real in so far as the security of the illusion was concerned. HE said, 'gate ke is paar hum zindagi ko nachate hai, gate ke us paar zindagi hame nachati hai. ' This in effect means that when exam time is over, fun time is over. This seems strange because the pressure gets over after examination. Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't. It just gets added on. Because one has to start afresh. Move to new things, new chapters, new people. And somewhere we are not ready yet. The path to move on, is a progressive path, more often than ever. There should be no sense of leaving anything behind. Only, honestly, there is. And that is when change becomes the hardest enemy as nostalgias are recollected as times one had and times to treasure when some days before when one took minor baby step leading to this big change, those times seem as important and yet as frivolous(for some) as a good meal one had for dinner, or a regular relaxing weekend in which one lazy out with friends and family. All of a sudden, one realizes the importance of those moments which at a point of time seem to be taken for granted. That the path is progressive, is what our friends and family and well wishers tell us. Even though there is no feeling better to resist the change, to stop, to relax, to take a vacation, from the uncertainty into the recurring mundane routine one has before this big change where the priorities change, and one has to move on. And I guess that is best explained by Chuckie to Will in the film Good Will Hunting, where Will has the opportunity to make a good life, have a future, at the cost of moving from his old house, his friends. The conversation is something like this: 'Chuckie: It's a way outta here. Will: What do I want a way out for? I want to live here the rest of my life. I want to be your next door neighbour. I want to take out kids to little league together up Foley Field.

CHUCKIE Look, you're my best friend, so don't take this the wrong way, but in 20 years, if you're livin' next door to me, comin' over watchin' the Patriots' games and still workin' construction, I'll kill you. And that's not a threat, that's a fact. I'll kill you.

CHUCKIE: Let me tell you what I do know. Every day I come by to pick you up, and we go out drinkin' or whatever and we have a few laughs. But you know what the best part of my day is? The ten seconds before I knock on the door 'cause I let myself think I might get here, and you'd be gone. I'd knock on the door and you wouldn't be there.You just left.'

This conversation between friends, SAYS A LOT. Even though it involves a dead threat if you will, it says that our friends, our family, our well wishers want us to move on to that uncertain path as well.
No one knows what happens in the future, but the only way to find out is, to step into it. And it is not even optional not to. So we move on. So we move ahead.

The Character of Meg Ryan from You've Got Mail, puts it bluntly: 'People are always telling you that change is a good thing, but all they are really telling you is something you didn't want to happen at all has happened.'

In spite of a background in Philosophy I'll like to share Hudson's (Mathew Perry's) life view from the film Numb (2007) which puts two very simple thoughts together. i.e.
1. I just want to be a happy person with happy thoughts.
2. We are all a simple action away from complete disaster.

If life is premised on these two points, and the uncertainty of what the future presents, and the non optional change one is forced to inhere with, with a hope and optimism of our friends and family to walk blindfolded on razor's edge with a smile and a confidence....then one is, also at the same time internally balancing the negative thoughts of making mistakes, of goofing up, in decisions and actions, in the face of hopeless helplessness.

In the light of these thoughts, another narrative comes to mind.

'Don't wonder why people go crazy. Wonder why they don't. In the face of all we can lose in a day, in an instance, wonder what the hell it is, that makes us hold it together.'

This is from Grey's Anatomy, Season 4 Episode 15, entitled Losing my mind.

I would like to call this Blog 'Knowing Endevours' someday, trying to know at the background of everything, what keeps us sane despite this uncertainty. My endevour, my attempt is to know what prevents us from losing our minds in the process of knowing, just knowing life, ourselves, and the world around us, whatever that means.