Cockroaches on the move!

 With the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) making headlines (certainly not on Godi media, but everywhere else), there is both entertainment as well a great hope.  The hope is that this satirical act and response to a stray comment by a legal authority, is talking, and talking perfect practical sense, which is being recognised.  The very fact that the government is banning and closing and accusing it of all 'anti-national' traits, is enough proof to say that there is some truth behind CJPs thought. The best aspect of this 'movement' - if one may say so - is that it is youth who are driving the process. Whether it sustains the momentum and results in some radical changes and growth, helping Indian democracy and future, is something to be seen (this statement qualifies me too to be a member of the CJP - lazy and waiting for someone else to work for the results!)

That said, I liked the following summary of the eligibility criteria: (an extract from the article of Fr Jose Maliekal) 

Dipke used AI tools like Claude and ChatGPT to design the website and manifesto within two hours. The movement's eligibility criteria are openly satirical yet strategically inclusive: unemployed ("by force, by choice, or by principle"), lazy ("refers only to physical activity"), chronically online ("at least 11 hours daily, including bathroom breaks"), and able to rant professionally ("content must be sharp, honest, and point at something that matters").

I specially like the last criteria! 

She put in two pence

In the gospel there is the instance where the poor old widow puts in two pence and Jesus cites her as the one who gave the most.

It now strikes me that there is a very strange affinity with what I'm researching: human meanings (those felt by us) and life meanings (those labelled).  In the instance of the old widow, she put in the least, in comparison with the others.  But she was most generous, again in comparison to others.  Or it could also be said that she contributed the most, again in simple logical mathematical ratio comparison.  Two different standards: in comparison to others and in comparison to mathematical ratio. Two contradictory results.

If speaking in terms of quantity and quality, then quantity wise she contributed practically nothing.  But qualitatively she contributed everything.  But again, quantity is in terms of cash; quality is in terms of generosity.

Two different standards of measurement and the resulting two conclusions can either be treated as contradictory or complementary.  Viewed from either side, the result of the other perspective is contradictory (even if we don't call it 'false'). But if viewed holistically. both the views are valid and compatible with one another - none truer than the other.

Only when we introduce criteria external to the woman and her action, be it either Jesus or the rich men and their subsequent critique of her and her action, do comparative words like 'little', 'much'... and all the other vocabulary flow in.  She put in two pence! 

An echo chamber

Read an interesting article on Aeon today: Why it is hard to escape an echo chamber?

As I read this article all I could think, at every instance or para of it was the present grip of Mr Modi on the Indian electorate.  The BJP that is presenting itself is very different from that of the BJP represented by Vajpayee or even Advani.  The former, was distinctly clear about its agenda, course of action and vision.  It made no veiled presentation of itself.  Everyone, not just members of the party, knew what its aims and objectives were.  Not so with the present BJP.  What it has succeeded indeed is turn the Indian mind into an echo chamber.  In doing so it has not blocked itself from 'other voices', merely branded them untrustworthy, corrupted and therefore not worth anything.  Far from doublespeak, or even momentary epistemic glimpses, the echo chamber sounds rational, interested in the truth, active throughout and resonates with voices; but merely endorsing its own principles.  Even the contrary voices somehow are so manipulated (not by changing their content, but by changing the mind of the listener), that they endorse the principles of the 'ghetto'. 

The solution out of this echo chamber?  Trust!  There are numerous voices that resonate in a society.  However we know not whom and what to trust.  Unless we begin to trust a voice and that voice proves itself trustworthy, we will only further entrench ourselves in the echo chamber. 

To be more fair to the reading of the article, I can even look at my own Catholic upbringing as a echo chamber.  However, as long as one is willing to look at, evaluate and even trust other contrary sources, is open minded about the authority of sources other than Catholic sources, am willing to be won over by the goodness I observe, acknowledge and appreciate in others, especially non-Christians... I would think I'm not an ostrich in an echo chamber.  

Convincing witness

Reflection for April 23

“My Lord and my God!”

Thomas is often referred to as the 'doubting Thomas'. That's because he refused to believe until he personally saw the risen Jesus. While this incident does say much about the conviction level of Thomas, it also speaks much about the convincing level of the remaining apostles. After all, Thomas spent three years in the company of these men. He ought to have learned to trust and respect them, as companions. But even after all those adventures they had together, the witness of the remaining apostles was not enough to convince Thomas.

More than being like Thomas, who had the guts to openly acknowledge his doubts and seek confirmation for what he was asked to believe in, we are like the remaining apostles. Firm in belief, but hardly convincing enough for those who know us, even those close to us. Of course, there are some who do not bother to notice or blindly refuse, just for the heck of it. But not always can the blame be labelled on others.

Thomas' declaration and transformation led him to travel across the globe and even to martyrdom in India, as a testament of his undying love for Jesus. This Divine Mercy Sunday offers us a good challenge to ask ourselves as to how deep is our faith and how genuine a witness are we to the risen Lord.

Caricaturing opponents

On treatment of opponents, here's a quote of Nietzsche (Will to Power, § 374)

Every society has the tendency to reduce its opponents to caricatures-at least in imagination-and, as it were, to starve them. Such a caricature is, e.g., our "criminal." Within the aristocratic Roman order of values, the Jew was reduced to a caricature. Among artists, the "philistine and bourgeois" become caricatures; among the pious, the godless; among aristocrats, the man of the people. Among immoralists it is the moralist: Plato, for example, becomes a caricature in my hands. 

Judging the past

How justified are we when we pass a judgment on those before us, by standards of today?  Not really I think.

Say for example, we often hear people decry that women in the past had no share in the property of the father/parents.  And therefore, how unjust was the father?  Well, was he?  It was just the way it was then.  The whole concept of equal share of property to all the children is a modern concept.  How can that be applied retrospect to evaluate something of the past?

Are our teachers gullible of offering an education, based on an obsolete model?
Was the West right in colonizing rest of the world?
Was the Church right in condemning the scientific discoveries in the Middle ages?

Another factor to be kept in mind: What we do and say today will surely stand to scrutiny tomorrow.  Perhaps the next generation would be more critical of our 'liberal' thoughts, policies and actions, than we are of our predecessors.

Reframing Pope Francis

Here's an except offering a rather realistic and sensible picture of Pope Francis, as written by Michael Cook (editor of MercatorNet) in an article titled, 'Reframing Pope Francis'

Perhaps we need a fresh framework to understand him. Francis is not a conventional Bishop of Rome. After 150 years of Popes who have been mostly diplomats or intellectuals, in 2013 the cardinals elected a Latin American Jesuit, a bishop with a profoundly pastoral heart. In John Paul II, the Church had a strikingly original philosopher; in Benedict XVI, one of the world’s finest theologians; and in Francis, a distinguished spiritual director. 

The figure of the “spiritual director” is a familiar one in the Catholic Church and the Jesuits are famed for producing them. They are priests (usually) who “direct souls”, that is, give prayerful and practical advice to people one-by-one. 

Their role is to help each person reach the heights of Christian life, sometimes by comforting and consoling, sometimes by scolding and berating, always by helping people to be more prayerful and centred on Christ. It’s no accident that the Pope’s Christmas present to the members of the Roman Curia – the officials at the Vatican – was an Italian translation of stern textbook by a 17th Century Jesuit, Industriae ad curandos animae morbos (Curing illnesses of the soul). 

The harsh side of Francis as a spiritual director seems to have deeply offended some clergy. “We’ve stuck with the Church through thick and thin, we get paid peanuts, and this guy rips into us for not being holy enough! Just who does he think he is?” But this has always been the reaction of weary clergy in past eras of reform. Just read the lives of the 16th Century Counter-Reformation saints Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross. It’s an understandable complaint, but it’s not holiness. 

Sadly, a bit of berating seems to be in order after the world-wide sex abuse scandals, profligacy in the Vatican, and, worst of all, a collapse in the number of church-goers. Francis seems to believe that if there had been more Padre Pios in the pulpits, there would be more Catholics in the pews. 

The important thing to remember about a spiritual director—unlike a philosopher or theologian -- is that his advice is imparted personally, soul by soul. It is not delivered in sermons, books, or Facebook groups. It is not an off-the-rack suit but bespoke spiritual tailoring. All of Francis’s advice in Amoris Laetitia is perfectly conventional if viewed through the prism of personal spiritual direction. He is showing the Church how to apply to prodigal sons and daughters the principles of Vatican II and of the two great Popes who implemented its spirit. 

There are risks, of course. Francis’s approach will only work if priests (all Catholics, actually) are willing to be shepherds with the smell of the sheep. If too many of them settle for being managers or “collectors of antiques or novelties”, it will fail. 

History will be the judge of how effective this will be, but Francis is taking for granted that John Paul II and Benedict XVI had already created a robust intellectual framework for evangelization by producing the Catholic Catechism and their brilliant encyclicals. Now it is time for action, for reaching out, for bringing the Gospel message to a secularized world.

So the critics’ view is topsy-turvy. Instead of contesting traditional Catholic notions like exceptionless moral norms, the indissolubility of marriage, or the possibility of living according to the moral law, Francis assumes them. OK, he is saying, we’ve spent the last 40 years updating the language of traditional moral theology. It’s time to roll this out on the battlefield and set up our field hospitals.

Read the whole article here.

Time permitting read also the comments that follow the article.  Most of them seem to feel offended to hear that there is more to Christian faith than doctrine.  They seem to be perfectly at home with the idea of a well-defined doctrine, near-perfect liturgy, pious sermons ... even if all of this is at the cost of a living and life-giving experience of God, in accordance with the Gospels.  

Education ... freedom and authenticity

A quote from the presentation of Mr Kurian during one of the Strategic Planning sessions.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Paulo Freire) and Deschooling Society (Ivan Illich) have discussed at length the politics of education.  True formation must decolonize the mind. There is nothing more damning than the illusion of a unique, singular, uncritical and choiceless identity.  "If traditionalism were proper, the prophets would merely have followed their own leaders and not come with new messages" (Akbar and his India). 

Along with Oscar Wilde, we could remember from time to time, that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.  Provided, of course, the freedom to think is at the service of the freedom to authenticity. 

Criticism

An act requires a befitting response. No response is as bad as a over-reaction.  Often in our communities and in the society as a whole we are allergic to criticism.  Of course, no one loves to be criticised all the time but some critical appreciation is always good and healthy.  Most often people have a such a dreaded experience of facing criticism that they either shy away or bluntly oppose any criticism that comes their way.  While receiving criticism with the right and proper attitude is an art to be mastered, so is offering healthy and productive criticism.

After all, one does not cut fingers because fingernails have grown!