.jpg)
"These were never your true love's eyes.
Why do you feign that you love them?
You that broke from their constancies,
And the wide calm brows above them!
This was never your true love's speech.
Why do you thrill when you hear it?
You that have ridden out of its reach
The width of the world or near it!
This was never your true love's hair, --
You that chafed when it bound you
Screened from knowledge or shame or care,
In the night that it made around you!"
"All these things I know, I know.
And that's why my heart is breaking!"
"Then what do you gain by pretending so?"
"The joy of an old wound waking."
- Rudyard Kipling
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Ignorance ain't no bliss, but then, so ain't knowledge
Socrates equated virtue to knowledge. Everyone is deep down, good. No one does wrong intentionally. Wise men do what is right. If man has no knowledge he cannot do what is right. If man has knowledge he cannot do what is wrong. All wrong doing arises out of ingorance. No one does wrong intentionally.
Goodness is knowledge! Actually in real life, it is just the opposite. Bad experiences put things in perspective for people. Presupposing goodness and ignorance just elongates the length of those experiences, till appearances get shattered. Presupposing bad is just as twisted, only it is recognised to be more so. But everybody presupposes. Both good and bad. More often bad than good, I think. Fixing things is not hard with the real at hand. Usually it is not, and that is the hard part. But it is hurtful to fix nevertheless, specially when one doesn't believe in vengence for the bad incurred. More so, because there comes a need to fix, what one has not broken. The remedy is for a patient unaware of an illness diagnosed correctly.
I have a good friend, who is not really so,
Whether not good, Whether not friend,
I do not know.
What I know is that I am a friend,
Whether good, whether not,
Friend doesn't know.
The protocol is to abide by, what one knows.
And no one knows what the other knows.
Because of goodness. That much, I know.
God forbid anyone from going through life because of presupposing the stuff philosophers sell in their sleep. Ignorance or knowledge doesn't really stop anyone from doing anything, does it? No one is aiming towards goodness. Maybe, it should not be aimed for, anyways. If goodness is the aim, that person ain't good. And if that is not true, the good one does, might just be to cover up the bad incurred by some. The need won't arise otherwise. One doesn't need a cross or nails to believe that Jesus lived or live. Just take a look around. There will be many cruxified, others trying to crusify. Whether there is an angel up there, one doesn't know. What there is, is a willingness to engage in this activity. Presupposing goodness is likely to get one engaged in problems. A naive victim doesn't for see the trap, or rather the maze one lives in.
Goodness is knowledge! Actually in real life, it is just the opposite. Bad experiences put things in perspective for people. Presupposing goodness and ignorance just elongates the length of those experiences, till appearances get shattered. Presupposing bad is just as twisted, only it is recognised to be more so. But everybody presupposes. Both good and bad. More often bad than good, I think. Fixing things is not hard with the real at hand. Usually it is not, and that is the hard part. But it is hurtful to fix nevertheless, specially when one doesn't believe in vengence for the bad incurred. More so, because there comes a need to fix, what one has not broken. The remedy is for a patient unaware of an illness diagnosed correctly.
I have a good friend, who is not really so,
Whether not good, Whether not friend,
I do not know.
What I know is that I am a friend,
Whether good, whether not,
Friend doesn't know.
The protocol is to abide by, what one knows.
And no one knows what the other knows.
Because of goodness. That much, I know.
God forbid anyone from going through life because of presupposing the stuff philosophers sell in their sleep. Ignorance or knowledge doesn't really stop anyone from doing anything, does it? No one is aiming towards goodness. Maybe, it should not be aimed for, anyways. If goodness is the aim, that person ain't good. And if that is not true, the good one does, might just be to cover up the bad incurred by some. The need won't arise otherwise. One doesn't need a cross or nails to believe that Jesus lived or live. Just take a look around. There will be many cruxified, others trying to crusify. Whether there is an angel up there, one doesn't know. What there is, is a willingness to engage in this activity. Presupposing goodness is likely to get one engaged in problems. A naive victim doesn't for see the trap, or rather the maze one lives in.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Dusty Music
In the Glee fever I think about soul searching souls and invariably when solos or duets would be performed, I would think about Frank Sinatra and Barbara Streisand. I recently came across ‘Losing you’, beautifully sung by Mary Isabel Catherine Bernadette O'Brien. The name ‘Dusty’ does this woman no justice. Her voice is all about finesse. If I could sing, and sing well, I would like to sing like her. Not just her wonderful voice or the persona. I would like to be as articulate as her singing. I would like to be understood. Her song leaves no communication gap, language and arguments, come across in philosophy. Or atleast, the way I do it. Her voice gives life to the lyrics. It unfolds in itself spiraling a whole lot of meaning, as the song progresses. It didn’t take me long to get submerged by the emotions and the energy of vibrated in her voice. The power of it is uncanny and mesmerizing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95Xd8bgXLLA
She was born in 1939 and died in 1999. The woman’s growing up years was probably living through a world war. In dark political climate one often ends up coming across existential writings and eludes a strange philosophical epiphany to them. But music is buried, when one thinks of that time, in the noise of violence and devastation. And music like this, ‘Pop’! Let’s face it. It is easier to see the silver lining when one is brought up in happier times, with happy ideals and principles. But when one goes through dark times, it seems easier to write in all probability, than sing. It must have taken courage to grow up to be a singer and releasing and revealing oneself like that. We live our lives, oblivious to what we want and strive for. Once we find our true passions, we work towards it. If one is lucky, one succeeds. I don’t know how easy or difficult Dusty’s life has been, how her life choices were made. But when I heard her sing in the video, I am sure, she was able to utilize her being in the best way possible for her to do so. Her voice, it makes me admire not just a good singer, but one person who fulfilled the purpose of her life. It is truly inspirational. I thought I’d share.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Altruism to be 'moral', shouldn't lack 'self worth'
Neera Karpur Bhadwar’s “Altruism Versus Self Interest: Sometimes a False Dichotomy” is an article which in the process of the immediate aim, (i.e. to challenge the view: That self interest cannot be a motive of altruistic act) highlights the importance of self affirmation. Self affirmation and the way in which it is connected to self interest on one side and altruism on the other can help determine if an act is altruistic or not. Self worth, an important factor of self affirmation can help to determine if an act is moral or not.
A self affirming act is, by definition, one with some focus on the self. If a self affirming act was necessarily focused entirely on the self then there is a possibility of equating that particular self affirming act with selfishness. Such self affirming act which is also a selfish act will obviously have no moral worth. If this was the only way in which self affirmation works then one could say in all sincerity that a particular act is either self interested act of self affirmation or altruistic but not both. 'However, whether and to what extent a self affirming act is self focused depends on what it affirms.'(1) Here three examples of self affirming acts are given.
1. The act of poetry itself
2. The act of a poem or story telling as an expression of love (with an other directed purpose)
3. The act of rescue of Jews during the holocaust
The first merely indicates an individual’s need to create, a need whose existence and expression is independent of the world’s need for more poems, whose satisfaction may be largely independent of the world’s enjoyment of the product. It is a poem of a solipsist. According to Neera Bhadwar, ‘such an act is highly self focused, for it is motivated by an interest that, by its very nature, is wholly or largely independent of the interests of others: if the individual had not written a particular poem, he would have had little or no interest in its existence, for almost its entire value to him lies in the fact that it is his creation.’(2)
Then there is another example of a mother who writes a story for her son not because he needs that particular story, or that there are no other stories available to tell but that story. She writes the story because in that act she wants to affirm an expression of her love for her son. It matters to her though, that he enjoys the story. So the degree of self focus is less than in the first example.
Then comes the third example of rescuers who helped save the lives of many Jews during the Holocast. When questioned by researchers such as Monroe et al, whether the important thing was that the Jews be saved or if they were the ones to rescue them, most of them responded rather similarly as researches indicate. Neera Bhadwar maintains that ‘Rescuers’ altruistic dispositions made the plight f Jews salient to them, focusing them on their needs rather than their own. They helped insofar as doing so was the best way to save to bring about the desired end: had their attempts created more dangers for the particular person in need, they would have not attempted to help. Again had a rescuer thought that someone else was in a better position to help a particular individual, she would have let that person do it.'(3) The rescuers were not looking for a psychological reward for themselves. Saving the Jews was more important than being the ones to help, but to the extent the latter was compatible with the former, it too was important. In most cases though there was no choice in the sense that most of the rescuers responded to requests for help instead of initiating help. The response of such rescuers was that “Because they came to them and no one else, we helped them.
What makes Neera Bhadwar to reconcile what she calls rational self interest (in the form of self affirmation) as a moral attitude with a moral attitude is the belief that such a self interest is at the core of self respect. The latter has a moral connotation. As Butler also maintains “self love in its due degree is as just and morally good as any affection whatever,” because the goodness of an act depends on whether it is in accordance with our nature and the nature of the case, rather than on whether it is altruistic” . (4)This helps to understand that why some self sacrificial acts, no matter how pure in intent and effect are morally deficient as they lack that element of rational self interest that is needed for self affirmation. Such a person is one who lacks self worth and is no different in a way from the non rescuers during the holocaust who have a lack of self identity and self worth which prevents them from helping others in need.
Neera Bhadwar ends the essay with a description of such a self sacrificial person who though altruistic has lacked moral worth as a necessary element of rational self interest is missing for the kind of moral excellence that provides the main argument for the challenge taken up in this article.
“A person who leads such a self sacrificial life has abdicated or never developed her own independent judgment and ends. If the OTHERS did not wish to use her for their own ends, she would have nothing to live for. Others she sees as ends in themselves; herself, as only a means to their ends. Lacking a sense of self worth she has discounted the importance of her own interests, the interests that a person naturally acquires with her encounters with the world. It is this radical failure of interest in herself for her own sake this radical lack of self, that explains why, in her, even altruism fails to be a virtue.” (5)
I pray to God not to turn or grow into such a woman……
(1) “Altruism Versus Self Interest: Sometimes A False Dicotomy” from Altruism (eds.) E F Paul, Fred D Miller, & Jr , & Jeffery Paul, Cambridge University Press, 1993, pg 112.
(2)“Altruism Versus Self Interest: Sometimes A False Dicotomy” from Altruism (eds.) E F Paul, Fred D Miller, & Jr , & Jeffery Paul, Cambridge University Press, 1993, pg 113.
(3)“Altruism Versus Self Interest: Sometimes A False Dicotomy” from Altruism (eds.) E F Paul, Fred D Miller, & Jr , & Jeffery Paul, Cambridge University Press, 1993, pg 113
(4)Joseph Butler, Five Sermons, eds S. Darwall (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1983), preface, para 3.
(5)“Altruism Versus Self Interest: Sometimes A False Dicotomy” from Altruism (eds.) E F Paul, Fred D Miller, & Jr , & Jeffery Paul, Cambridge University Press, 1993, pg 117
A self affirming act is, by definition, one with some focus on the self. If a self affirming act was necessarily focused entirely on the self then there is a possibility of equating that particular self affirming act with selfishness. Such self affirming act which is also a selfish act will obviously have no moral worth. If this was the only way in which self affirmation works then one could say in all sincerity that a particular act is either self interested act of self affirmation or altruistic but not both. 'However, whether and to what extent a self affirming act is self focused depends on what it affirms.'(1) Here three examples of self affirming acts are given.
1. The act of poetry itself
2. The act of a poem or story telling as an expression of love (with an other directed purpose)
3. The act of rescue of Jews during the holocaust
The first merely indicates an individual’s need to create, a need whose existence and expression is independent of the world’s need for more poems, whose satisfaction may be largely independent of the world’s enjoyment of the product. It is a poem of a solipsist. According to Neera Bhadwar, ‘such an act is highly self focused, for it is motivated by an interest that, by its very nature, is wholly or largely independent of the interests of others: if the individual had not written a particular poem, he would have had little or no interest in its existence, for almost its entire value to him lies in the fact that it is his creation.’(2)
Then there is another example of a mother who writes a story for her son not because he needs that particular story, or that there are no other stories available to tell but that story. She writes the story because in that act she wants to affirm an expression of her love for her son. It matters to her though, that he enjoys the story. So the degree of self focus is less than in the first example.
Then comes the third example of rescuers who helped save the lives of many Jews during the Holocast. When questioned by researchers such as Monroe et al, whether the important thing was that the Jews be saved or if they were the ones to rescue them, most of them responded rather similarly as researches indicate. Neera Bhadwar maintains that ‘Rescuers’ altruistic dispositions made the plight f Jews salient to them, focusing them on their needs rather than their own. They helped insofar as doing so was the best way to save to bring about the desired end: had their attempts created more dangers for the particular person in need, they would have not attempted to help. Again had a rescuer thought that someone else was in a better position to help a particular individual, she would have let that person do it.'(3) The rescuers were not looking for a psychological reward for themselves. Saving the Jews was more important than being the ones to help, but to the extent the latter was compatible with the former, it too was important. In most cases though there was no choice in the sense that most of the rescuers responded to requests for help instead of initiating help. The response of such rescuers was that “Because they came to them and no one else, we helped them.
What makes Neera Bhadwar to reconcile what she calls rational self interest (in the form of self affirmation) as a moral attitude with a moral attitude is the belief that such a self interest is at the core of self respect. The latter has a moral connotation. As Butler also maintains “self love in its due degree is as just and morally good as any affection whatever,” because the goodness of an act depends on whether it is in accordance with our nature and the nature of the case, rather than on whether it is altruistic” . (4)This helps to understand that why some self sacrificial acts, no matter how pure in intent and effect are morally deficient as they lack that element of rational self interest that is needed for self affirmation. Such a person is one who lacks self worth and is no different in a way from the non rescuers during the holocaust who have a lack of self identity and self worth which prevents them from helping others in need.
Neera Bhadwar ends the essay with a description of such a self sacrificial person who though altruistic has lacked moral worth as a necessary element of rational self interest is missing for the kind of moral excellence that provides the main argument for the challenge taken up in this article.
“A person who leads such a self sacrificial life has abdicated or never developed her own independent judgment and ends. If the OTHERS did not wish to use her for their own ends, she would have nothing to live for. Others she sees as ends in themselves; herself, as only a means to their ends. Lacking a sense of self worth she has discounted the importance of her own interests, the interests that a person naturally acquires with her encounters with the world. It is this radical failure of interest in herself for her own sake this radical lack of self, that explains why, in her, even altruism fails to be a virtue.” (5)
I pray to God not to turn or grow into such a woman……
(1) “Altruism Versus Self Interest: Sometimes A False Dicotomy” from Altruism (eds.) E F Paul, Fred D Miller, & Jr , & Jeffery Paul, Cambridge University Press, 1993, pg 112.
(2)“Altruism Versus Self Interest: Sometimes A False Dicotomy” from Altruism (eds.) E F Paul, Fred D Miller, & Jr , & Jeffery Paul, Cambridge University Press, 1993, pg 113.
(3)“Altruism Versus Self Interest: Sometimes A False Dicotomy” from Altruism (eds.) E F Paul, Fred D Miller, & Jr , & Jeffery Paul, Cambridge University Press, 1993, pg 113
(4)Joseph Butler, Five Sermons, eds S. Darwall (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1983), preface, para 3.
(5)“Altruism Versus Self Interest: Sometimes A False Dicotomy” from Altruism (eds.) E F Paul, Fred D Miller, & Jr , & Jeffery Paul, Cambridge University Press, 1993, pg 117
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Meet my Bhaiya and Bhabhi(Payal) or perhaps I should say, Mrs and Mr Goswamy (Junior) now. I cherish them both and have little to say or rather write about them, (which is good considering most of my written work so far is critical in nature or sceptical and questioning). But with them, there is no place for scepticism, doubt, or criticism. And it is good to know that there are no questions or questioning there. I think the picture says it all. God bless them.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
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.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)