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! 

Creativity

 How does one define or explain 'creativity'? In simple words it is 'divergent thinking' that results in effective and surprising consequences - not all of which can be good or beneficial.  While it is good to learn and know that 2 + 2 = 4.  Now that's a single, linear, unchallengeable, correct answer.  But to the question 'What equals 4?' there could be numerous answers, and all of them correct.   

While effectiveness and novelty, are the resulting offshoots of creativity, certain factors contribute towards the origin of creative ideas or works: 

• an openness of mind towards alternatives, but for a specific purpose (or else any thinking could be branded creative!)
• willingness to take risks (greater the risk to personal aspects rather than others, the better it steers the creative act away from being a negative or malevolent one - at least, it is not negatively intended)
• availability of time (but for some, the opposite could be true!)

Philosophy and wisdom

If philosophy is the love or study of wisdom, then by that logic philosophers should be the most wise people on earth.  Now that statement can be treated more as a joke than a reality!  Why the lacuna between study of wisdom and being wise? 

I think the chasm lies in the fact that most philosophers get embroiled with logic, arguments, reasoning and reading, it is purely at the intellectual level.  In life, these hardly make an impact.  When these do not percolate my convictions, principles, values and day-to-day decisions of life, how would it make impact others, leave along the society at large?  Wisdom comes from letting these ideas and theories being worked out in real life, with real people and relations. Not merely in the abstract world of ideas and thoughts.  In that sense, I still hold that my Mum is a more wise person than I, in spite of my years of study of philosophy!

I agree that reading and thinking and philosophising helps.  But wisdom comes from living life, not merely reading about life or thinking about life.  We become wise engaging with real life-situations and people - the more challenging and complex these are, the better the possibility of we growing wise.  Reading and thinking and engaging in an intellectual debate (however intense) are safe bets - not life-altering.  Real life situations and the challenges they throw up, demand radical decisions and careful consideration.  That's the route to wisdom. 

Political strategy

With elections coming up for the state and within a year for the whole country, the political battles are getting bitter.  However, the ruling party hasn't any worthy opponent.  That doesn't make it a saint - far from it! The ruling party will most likely come to power not merely on its own merit, but thanks to the lack of alternatives.  Furthermore the think-tank in the ruling party have really got the common man in their pocket... not by any fair and just means, but mostly by keeping him/her occupied with trivial issues blown out of proportion to make us all believe that these are life and death issues.  The brains behind the campaign and the tenure have not done really anything highly controversial, but certainly prepared the ground for an unopposed ride in the next term.  The use of social media to promote an echo chamber has been phenomenal. 

The situation is such that most people 'think' that they are in the know how of things and 'feel' that all is well.  The American writer Thomas Pynchon's quote in Gravity's Rainbow (1973) is quite apt for the clever strategy of the government:

If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers. 

Besides if there are no forums to raise questions or systems in place where these can be sensibly aired, then certainly there is nothing going 'wrong' at all!  

Battling belief and truth

I don't remember a word of what the sermon this morning was!  Not because the priest was not speaking sense, but because my mind was battling some overflow of my meditation.

What would be the basic difference between belief and truth?  Now that's what I intend to research for my further studies. But it occurred to me this morning that belief is a matter of the heart. Truth a matter of the mind.  Not that they are compartmentalised but still predominantly, it is the heart that kicks in when it comes to matters of belief and faith.  I believe in something not because it makes complete sense or because it is true.  I honestly don't have logical explanations and rational proofs for most of what I believe in.  I feel.  I believe.

Now what is true (if it means abiding by the correspondence theory - that itself needs to be justified... or else how does one explain the concept of truth), need not always be the foundation of my belief or  what makes meaning.  And most often it is the mind that is most concerned with the truth (or falsity) of a reality. Now if I know something is the truth, then I cannot contest it.  Does that also mean, I'm bound to believe in it?  If not, what is the worth of calling something truthful?  In other words, can I have reasons for belief and heart for the truth?

But this whole idea of dividing the heart and mind is again Cartesian!  Can there be any other way of relating the two, without one merging into the other, each retaining its identity yet making sense to both.  I sense meaning has much to do with all of this. Yet am unable to lay my finger on it.

On the other hand, why should I be worried if there is a conflict between the two?  Isn't that a good thing?  Perhaps it is the conflict between belief and truth, between the heart and the mind that keeps me alive and going.  If not for this I'd be doing nothing, thinking nothing, striving for nothing.  But again fear this state as well: because it is a luxury only religious like me can afford.  Who else would have the time and space for sitting and thinking?!  Most of humanity is up and about working for their livelihood and some for basic survival.

Confirmation bias

In my reading during the day, I came across this phrase 'Confirmation bias' meaning, actively looking for things that help your argument and dismissing things that don't.

This is a tendency we find in everyone.  It is often the same bias that prevents us from admitting that we were wrong.  But there is another side of this as well.  Far from acknowledging mistake or error, we go to great lengths to devise strategies that affirm an outright error.  The author of the book Being Wrong, Kathryn Schulz points out five responses people offer to defend their mistake rather than admit them:

1. time-frame defence: just got the calculations a bit mixed up... but not wrong.
2. near-miss defence: it almost happened as I said it would 
3. out-of-left defence: it was almost going to happen as I said, but for that unexpected incident...
4. I was wrong, but it is your fault: not my doing... if I hadn't listened to your advice, it would have been as I said
5. better-safe-than-sorry defence: thinking and doing what I did, it would have been wrong for me to act otherwise... 

In all these there is a sort of 'mental accommodation' into which we ease ourselves to justify that what we think, hold, and believe is right, even if we know it is wrong!

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.

Dichotomy

Duality (considering two aspects of the same reality) is one thing. But dichotomy is a step further.  Not only are there two aspects but that these two are in contrast to one another. They are opposites! Surprisingly, without one the other does not exist.

I wonder how did we get into this sort of thinking?

Not only in the philosophical thought of Plato (beginning of western philosophy itself), but even in religious (Christian) thought one gets to see this.  Plato spoke of the World of Forms and this world.  Two distinct realities, standing in opposition to each other in their characteristics.  Then there was the body and the soul - one bad and the other good.

In the Bible, in the book of Genesis itself, there is this serpent and then God sanctions the 'enmity between you and the serpent, between your offspring and the offspring of the serpent'.

Today we are at a stage where we cannot but think otherwise.  Can we even stand out of this frame of mind and think?  To think of goodness, without the notion of evil? To think of light, without the concept of darkness?  

Why swear?

There are several reasons for justifying swearing (not the 'taking oath' swearing!).  Most common and acceptable among them is that it expresses best what one feels.  They rather than tell, manifest very forcefully what one is actually feeling.  That indeed is true.  However an argument can be made to the effect that we could coin a sound which would convey this, perhaps even with the same effect.  Say 'yuck' in contrast to 'shit'.

That and several other reasons put together brings me to fact that most swear words are taboo words.  They find their meaning and connection with things that are not considered 'good' or 'pure'.  So using a swear word is like a double attack.  Defy a broken rule!

I think that the whole notion of swear words and their rationale lie in the human conscious (or sub-conscious) need for polarity or duality. Our very thinking is dualistic.  We need 'bad', to show what is 'good'.  We want the 'impure' to retain the notion of 'purity'.  So however consciously we abhor 'evil' or 'bad' or 'impurity' we still need it to prove its counterpart.

So can a 'civilized' society totally do away with swear words? Never. It may not have the ones that we are used to hearing, but it certainly will have its own version.  If 'shit' isn't, 'yuck' would be!

Fueled by imagination

In philosophy there is now an ongoing debate whether its main task is to describe or explain reality.  Others ask if philosophy is altogether redundant given the growth of science.  Therefore some claim that it is needed to justify.  However, most of it can truly be called a pure mind-game.  One needs philosophy not for survival but for meaning.

Am thinking, all of this is something we adults engage ourselves with. Children on the other hand, are happy with what they have at hand - at least most of them.  Simple reasoning and even lies told convincingly satisfy them immensely.  They are not too worried about logic or reason.  In fact, they don't care about it at all, and are even attracted to the most illogical and irrational of things!  I guess that's because they prefer to let their imagination add up the rest.

And in their own world, they have a perfect understanding of things between them - their signs, language, actions, thoughts, behaviour... But as we grow old, we feel the need to understand 'perfectly' everything around us.  Everything has to be orderly, neat, organised and systematic.  Perhaps the child also goes by the same principles of order, hierarchy, organisation and system... only that it defies all logic.

Understanding the unintelligible

Most of us agree to the notion that there are things which are beyond conceptualization. There will always be things which we can never fix into words and meaning.  They will always elude intellectual grasp.

Theologians and believers would call that the realm of faith. Philosophers would mostly not agree to this fact and try all the same.  For the latter, this exercise is what keeps alive the inquisitiveness of human life. Thus in a way it is healthy, for the mind and for life.

In an effort to conceptualize the unintelligible, most often we think of what harm we would be doing to the reality itself.  By trying to fit it into our mental categories we somehow distort it, at times beyond recognition.  But today it struck me that there is something else that is harmed too: the tools by which we try to conceptualize the yet-to-be-conceptualized.  By tools I mainly mean language.  No wonder, the first thing that goes for a toss in philosophy and mystic talk is language.

And how does one grasp that which is beyond language?  Primarily without language one cannot think; even to name a sentiment we need language; even to express what is felt, one needs a medium/language...

Leading to reflection; not description

Am surprised at the writing style of Nietzsche... short paragraphs of just three to four sentences.  Often, there is not much of a connection between one para and the following one, given the fact that they have all been collated from over the years and arranged.

Then there is Wittgenstein, again, short pieces.  Not lengthy pages after pages with neither breaks nor even sub-headings.  See his Philosophical Investigations.  They are preferably referred to by their paragraph numbers than page numbers.

The beauty of such short texts is that they leave much room for reflection.  They do not have everything said and done in as detailed manner as possible. They merely throw you a point and then rattle your brain.  Put you on a different track of thought. Throw you off guard.  They are open-ended.  Can be interpreted in different, divergent ways.

I wonder if at all they were trying to build up a system of philosophy? More than the Nietzsche, I can hardly make sense that Wittgenstein wanted to build another system of philosophy.  His attempt seems more like what or how philosophy should done - if at all one is to do such a thing called 'philosophy'.

Another writer with a similar writing style, whom I've found interesting and leading to reflection, is Anthony DeMello.  Short texts, laden with meaning and open to interpretation. 

A story

As I was rummaging through my collection of books at home I came across this particular book, which I had in my collection only because of one particular explanation or presentation of ethics.  Most importantly it was not a book about ethics at all.  However, during my first year of Practical training when I choose to teach Philosophy of Morality, this particular narration put things in perspective, primarily for me and for most of my students as well. Besides the last para about the aspiration of a 'teacher' somehow found a resonance within me.

The context is the value of a story!

For instance, almost every student will admit - at least in theory - that love is more important than sex. But when it comes to actual practice, it's a different ballgame.  For example, "Why can't my boyfriend and I sleep together?  We really love one another." Well, I argue, in the first place you can sleep with him. Short of chaining you in the cellar, who can stop you? The real question is whether it's the best gift you can give one another.  Now that response usually makes them raise their condescending eyes toward heaven and wonder if my insanity can ever be cured.  "Of course it's the best gift you can give someone you love!" 

Well, I rejoin, you love your parents; you love people of your own sex; do you give them that gift too?  More groans. "Father, you're really dumb! There's only one person - at least one person at a time - that you give that gift to." Backed into a corner once more, I go for my last weapon: I tell a story to illustrate what I mean, in this case a true one. 

When I was born, I was a breech birth, which means I came into the world folded in half, not headfirst but rear-end first. (Usually there are some wits who capitalize on that, but I continue undaunted.) As a result, my mother was so torn by the delivery that she had to have a great many stitches.  The doctor told my father that he should stay out of bed with her for about three months. But my father, who was the kindest man I have ever known, didn't want to take even the slightest risk of causing my mother even the slightest pain. So he stayed out of bed with her for a year.  That raises the question: Which way did he show more love for her - by getting into bed with her or by staying out of bed?  Is it possible that there is an even greater way of showing love than sex? 

Perhaps not everyone in the class immediately understands what I'm getting at, but it's rare that the story doesn't make everyone of them think, make them wonder if perhaps there might be an aspect of love they haven't thought about.  As a teacher, that's my job: to make people think, to make them reassess, to make them grow - which often means leaving behind opinions that are comfortable, reassuring, self-serving.  

William J. O'Malley The Living Word: Scripture Myth  Vol. 1 (New York: Paulist Press, 1980) 30-31.

Sharing... from the heart

While our sharing based on our reflections on the Salesian Constitutions was good, it brought back to my mind some of the earlier sharings I was involved in, with members of my community wherever I was during my earlier years.

There was a time when I was 'all head' and would feel odd about people sharing their feelings and sentiments.  I considered them as not strong people or those incapable of 'delving deep' into something profound.  However over the years my perception has changed and today I hold quite the contradictory position.  To share something of one's own feelings and emotions in all honesty require a great amount of courage and maturity.  Only those who have a genuinely large heart for the group and are at home with the group and themselves can do so.

To expose one's vulnerabilities before others, one's own family members, does not make one more feeble or guilty; it actually strengthens one from within.  Done in an ambiance of sincerity and openness, it gives one the courage to face difficulties, no more as individuals but as persons who enjoy the support and cooperation of a 'family'.

Once we taste this sort of sharing when in a small close knit group of persons, a very sound theological or doctrinal exposition of a concept does not touch anyone as much as a downcast look or a brief pause after narration of a very personal experience.

Knowing God

As part of my Ancient Western Philosophy class with the first year students at Karunapuram, I was telling them about the arche (basis) of the universe as proposed by the early Greek philosophers.  Anaximander states this arche to be something without form or shape, a limitless aperion.  It all went on well, till the next day one of the students asked, "How can a non-physical reality give rise to, or cause, physical reality?"

I threw open the question to the whole class.  Even after much cajoling and offering some pointers, they were clueless.  After a while I softly told the one who asked the question, "Now get ready for an avalanche of answers!" I then rephrased the question. Honestly I only added one word before the 'avalanche' commenced.  "How can God a non-physical reality give rise to, or cause physical reality?"  As the barrage of answers flowed in, I was laughing and laughing.  All of them the typical pietistic answers about God being the creator and maker...

As I challenged their answers, the look on their faces was worth every bit of it.  How convinced are we about our understanding of God? While we think we are sure, we actually know nothing much!  But in our ignorance is our bliss!

Prejudices

The past few days have been a living example of how personal prejudices - deep and crooked - can be detrimental to any learning or growth.  When so jaundiced about someone whatever the person says or proposes is immediate attacked or thrown out without even a casual look. Ideas and words become stingers and they are thrashed out of one's views without battling an eyelid.

Basically I fear it is a sickness to think that we know it all and therefore there is nothing new to be learnt.  While claiming to know, we actually think we know it all; while in reality we hardly know it.  We proudly proclaim our love and attachment to what we hold dear... but I wonder how much of it do we really know, and understand, to say that 'I love it dearly!'

There is also a great fear of moving out of our comfort zones and trying out something new or different.  But when one is not even open to, leave alone try out, new possibilities and suggestions one is nailing one's own coffin!

The Myth of "I know best!"

We are in the midst of a heated debate.  The topic being, whether children are capable of decision-making.  Most in the group were fighting tooth and nail, that we (adults) need to decide for the child, because the child is not capable of making serious decisions.  So we have to intervene.

I was of the other group stating that children, especially children in our YaR centres, are capable of decision making.  To prove this I only gave two proofs: the very fact that the child has run away from home (the decision to run away, a risk, a gamble) and to compound it the decision of the child to stay away from home!!!

As long as we (adults) stubbornly and egoistically hold on to this notion that 'I know best', children will never come on board. They will either become subservient, giving up their decision making skill and in the long run the very capability - another way of explaining 'institutionalisation' or 'making capable decision makers into impotent living beings'.  Or they will rebel, and turn out to be always opposing because that is what they grow up to know as a way of expressing themselves.

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. 

Purpose of education

Philosophy and life

Over the past few months, there has been several times when I've questioned myself about the validity of pursuing my higher studies in Philosophy.  Having lived and experienced life, at close quarters in Punganur and here, Ramanthapur, I see the disjoint between philosophical study and real life.

However, I'm also quite aware - and happily so - that what I am is aided much by my own philosophical study and reflection.  If not for philosophy perhaps my view of the horizon I now behold may not be the same.

Honestly speaking I think the disjoint is not so much between philosophy as such and life but in the way philosophy is treated and looked upon and the sort of life commitment one is willing to make.