Tag Archives: Opinion

How the Liberal Left Dug Its Own Grave


Ok so I know I said this blog is no longer active, but 2016 has smashed my brain too hard.
In 2014 the Hindu Fascist leader won a majority in the Indian elections. Then this year Brexit happened riding a wave of hate nationalism and anti-everyone-but-us hysteria. Then finally the icing on the cake was the Trump presidency. It was obvious he was lying. It was obvious he’s a douche bag who shouldn’t be hired as a janitor of a school let alone the president of the most powerful country. But people voted for him anyway.

I still think that this is a sign of desperation and not some collective mind fuck history has dumped on us. Before each of these rise of the right events, people were waiting and hoping for a left wing, liberal alternative to emerge. In India the elections were preceeded by two major uprisings against corruption and sexual violence. A party was also formed which remains the prominent player in the political arena.
In Britain the young people squarely rejected the racist claptrap. In America Trump was actually a solid presidential candidate only after Bernie Sanders lost.
Thus the old quote is again proven true:

Behind every dictatorship is a failed revolution.

People are looking for alternatives and when the left fails them, the radical right seems like the last resort.
Here is how I think the postmodern leftists and liberals dug their own graves:

1) They rejected any possibility of ‘Reality’ existing outside of an individual’s presumptions and pretensions. They proclaimed that everything which claims to be a universal or a generally applicable principle is a dictatorship of thought. It was not the Truth in them which made them powerful but rather their privileged position in the world.

2) This meant that all opinions about reality were equally valid and there was no possibility of any judgement. Thus they supported a theocratic dictatorship in Iran as it was against US imperialism. They supported cultural relativism which stalled humanistic progress and supplied the perfect alibi for regressive conservatives who attacked free speech, used blasphemy laws, stalled any bid for gender racial or social equality. This also meant that denial of science and history was seen as legitimate ‘Knowledge’. From here started the Orwellian Ignorance is Knowledge trend. Climate Change was denied. Holocaust was underplayed or seen as a conspiracy. Nazism became all right and so did the Alt-Right.

3) Since liberals and leftists still believed in freedom, they were paradoxically creating a situation where they themselves became powerless. It was said that every opinion, reality and truth was subjective and should be allowed to exist. But this also meant that beliefs which supported a fundamentalist streak, suppressing everything which contradicted them with violence, was also a legitimate exercise of freedom. Many people came out in support of Fundamentalist Islam when they sought to ban Salman Rushdie’s book and asked for his head. He was blamed and no one really stood up for the freedom of speech of this writer. Thus people who believed in liberty for everyone lost their rights because they believed that people who attacked the very space of freedom should be allowed to do so.

4) Their dogmatic rejection of any possibility of a common reality existing outside subjective opinions made it impossible for the left to organize themselves at a societal level. Instead of solving real problems by coming together, they confined themselves to theoretical ivory towers endlessly debating everything and giving stupid solutions which didn’t work. This also meant that there can be no consensus. People can just come up and say that in their subjective opinion they reject everything and that will be enough to destroy common reality. People couldn’t find any stable foundation for their life, their society and for collective actions. Problems which were real regardless if you believe they exist or not were ignored. Postmodernists were also furious in their attacks on Humanism which actually was the leading grand narrative against regressive values, however they were far more sympathetic to religion for no reason. This gave birth to the infamous regressive left, where fundamentalist faith was protected while rationality was demonized. While in the end of twentieth century humanists were successful in ending apartheid and in civil rights movement in USA, religion (which was faultering) was given a massive incubator so that it can grow its tentacles again. Once religion was accepted in intellectual circles, regressive values and appeals to sexist and racist traditions didn’t take time to come back and become respectable.

5) Now all of this created a powerless stalemate where the left could actually provide nothing of substance except for the pretentious dogma that every thought, opinion, belief and value was equal in terms of facts and truths. “Everything is Subjective” is not really an answer to global economic crisis, climate change or fundamentalist terrorism. This meant that at least the right wing could provide some superficial action plans. Ironically it is the right wing which now uses this dogma not to promote freedom but to impose their power by simply ignoring facts and presenting their hate and judgment in a 24X7 reality show. What we seek from our leaders now is not a plan for progress based on reality but entertainment and antics.
Politics is a show at par with Jersey Shore. Our leaders don’t have to inspire us anymore they just have to provide us our celebrity porn, make headlines for saying nothing and help us masturbate out of our depressing realities. This is all thanks to some glamorous leftist French intellectuals who said many logically incoherent things in 1970s to earn quick fame and money.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , ,

Why My Atheism Doesn’t Need The Absence of God


Atheism

We have been told that there is some supreme being up in heaven who looks after us and is all good.
Supposedly he is all powerful – – the master of the cosmos.
He sees everything – – all our crimes and acts of kindness.
Also, he is omnipresent, existing everywhere, all at once, always.

And yet, despite this grand claim of religion, the amount of human suffering only seems to be increasing as the centuries pass by.

Wars have gotten deadlier as humanity learns to create newer and better Weapons of Mass Destruction.

After a brief waning of religious fundamentalism in the middle of 20th century, our dear god has returned to become an excuse for genocides and terrorist bombings.

We live in an era in which the amount of absolute poverty is highest in the history of humanity. Despite this fact, there seems to be a consensus that the fight against an economy of inequality is trivial or boring.

As if these human-made atrocities were not enough, our dear god seems to be particularly keen on gifting us more and more disasters of the natural kind.

In the middle of all this shit, some people see the divine will at work to do good. They say it is god’s own mysterious way to redeem humankind. The disasters, genocides, mass rapes and child prostitutes are all part of the plan. They are a symbol of divine grace, according to the religious nuts.

And this is what, I think, justifies 21st century Atheism. If God exists, then he is a criminal. And that is why I reject his demand to be acknowledged and worshiped.

If God is omnipotent, then he is responsible for the millions of live lost in earthquakes, tornadoes and tsunamis everywhere in the world.

If he is omnipresent, then he just stood by when millions of women, children and men were raped, ripped apart and destroyed throughout history.

If he is omniscient, then he just watches passively as thousands of infants starve to death everyday around the world.

I know religious crazies have justifications for this as well. “Wait for the judgment day or Karma,” they say.
But a being who can stop and prevent these mind-numbing atrocities through his divine powers cannot excuse himself of his responsibility. Giving judgments after the beings he created have committed their crimes barely lessens the suffering of the innocents.

One who stands by even though he can prevent a crime is as guilty as the criminal himself.

And thus, I refuse to believe in the existence of God simply because I don’t see this divine being making a difference. Even if god exists so what? Humanity still has to deal with the world on its own. Praying and worship have never prevented a tragedy. Nor it ever will.

Thus, my atheism is purely a political rebellion. It is the negation of god even if he exists. It is the act of spitting on his face. It is the slap which he deserves if he exists.

Militant atheists like Dawkins simply waste their time debating with theists about the non-existence of god.

Firstly, the concept of God itself is unscientific. God is (cleverly) conceived as something which can’t be completely known. Thus, God can’t be disproved. And despite the claims of physicists, just because science works doesn’t automatically mean that God doesn’t exist.
E=mc2 has no logical connection to God=Non-existent.

Secondly, if God exists then it is even worse for religion. Because in the center of their belief system lies a being who is the most perverted criminal in the cosmos.

Thus, I think atheism should give up the time consuming, elaborate debates about the absence or the existence of the oldest imaginary friend humanity ever created. It should simply position itself as a political rebellion — something which makes much more sense in the present scenario.

Nietzsche said:

“…if God did exist, we would need to kill him off.”

However the 21st century atheist should say:

” God has survived, let’s kill him better in a better way. “

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

The Soul Without God And Theory


How can I explain?

Words can’t make you feel the deep, spiraling well I felt burrowing in my lungs as I stood in my verandah, staring at the clouds and knowing silently, calmly but profoundly that I exist.

No arguments can justify my fervent faith and devotion which I experienced as I sat everyday in front of my own sacred idols and prayed to them when I was six.

Not a single poem has been able to capture that of pain of realizing that my first lover didn’t really love me back. No verse can really explain the suffocating agony which ripped my innards into shreds then.

People will laugh if  I express that devastating feeling of being betrayed when my gods didn’t answer my desperate prayers at a time when I needed them most.

These are the moments which made me intensely aware of my being and that is precisely why words always feel so impotent when I try to express them.

Some philosophers say that language is the house of being. I think that is terribly stupid. Language might be the house of identity which can be communicated, but being precedes words. It is in fact a precondition of language. This is made obvious in those moments when language’s failure is so complete that it simply crumbles — in those events when we become speechless.

These are the times when life acquires a depth previously unknown or forgotten. It may not exactly be a moment of unbound joy (pain and sadness are just as adept). It may not even be a moment of uncontrollable emotion (people who practice mindfulness will know how calm observation has a silent profoundness to it).

I think these are simply the moments of intense awareness — the point when existence refuses to be ignored by consciousness. This is when we realize that the experience of life has a value independent of any more explanations.

You might have heard something similar from the New Age gurus and spiritual enthusiasts.
When they tactfully evade the use of ‘God’ to explain the meaning of these experiences, they often use words like higher consciousness, the divine, the supreme consciousness and so on.

What I found common in most of the explanations I’ve encountered is that theses moments are theorized as events when the individual psyche ‘connects’ with someone or something larger, higher, placed above the individual in the spiritual ladder.

I not only think that these explanations are absurd, improvable or unnecessary; I also think that they are an insult.

It is to say, as if, the experiences aren’t worthwhile in themselves. That you have to construct an elaborate system of theories to give that experience some meaningful value. And these constructs are ultimately equally unable to ‘explain’ the cause or logic of any value whatsoever.

What is this special higher consciousness which makes us feel like this? What is this god-like divine and from where does it derive this powerful energy from? If these ‘higher’ beings and energies don’t need anymore explanations then why does the experiences of depth need to be justified by theories?

These explanations merely transfer the experiential valence of the events of depth into something else. It’s the same old religious trick in the garb of spirituality.

Their hypocrisy is often revealed when they themselves admit that words can’t explain the spiritual experiences and then go on to create fun, often cliched theories of spirituality. (Putting faith or intuition above reason is perhaps their favorite one as it allows them to bypass science and gain a few blind acolytes.)

I think that the moments of intense awareness, the moments when life acquires an unspeakable depth are preserved and relived the best without any words or gurus.

I think its time that the spirit reclaims its independence from the shackles of God and theory.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Truths, Experience and the Return of Falsity


When I was a kid I always thought that the deaths in films were real and that the actors who died were actually born again to star in their next blockbuster.

My fantasy fell apart when I actually saw the video of a film shoot in which the hero died 5 times within the span of fifteen minutes.
It was one of my first encounters with the failure of Truth.

It’s amazing how these early life lessons are buried under pretentious, fallacious theoretical bubbles.
How can people — scholars, intellectuals and activists — actually accept that everything we believe to be true actually becomes our reality? (Yes, I am talking about the post-modernists.) If the world really worked this way there would have been no disappointments. Expectations, faith and hope would have never crumbled as easily as it usually does.

Thus, even if there is no ultimate Truth, there sure exists some kind of falsity. There exists a difference between what we think or consider as the Truth and what we experience as reality. The problem simply is that we can’t demarcate between the two — the nature of our ever-changing knowledge doesn’t allow any permanent dichotomies.

And this is precisely why I think we should approach knowing in a different way than we usually do.

The base of Human Knowledge is not knowing.

Our quest for knowing is fueled by this partial or complete void; because, if we already know everything, then why seek anymore?
Remembering this fact is intensely liberating.

Let us not pretend that we uncover some hidden truth in the ‘outside’ world which we can’t even be sure of (as the world, for us, only exists in our perception).
I don’t mean to exclude the possibility that we have indeed discovered some thing which is universal, permanent or objective. But we just can’t be sure of them. Our knowledge is still in process, and this process includes change,rejection and return of truths which were previously rejected. The world was once flat and now it’s round. Who knows if it won’t turn into a triangle or not?

Knowledge and Truth will always be something which we put in. It exists only as Human knowledge. It is an act of our minds.

So let us pretend  instead that Truth is a story we tell which makes sense.
But does this mean that everything proclaimed as Truth becomes real?

Based on our collective experience of the world, Truth seems to be multiple and fluid. But not everything seems to be true. Not every medicine system cures the disease which it itself claims to cure. Not every hypothesis is proved right even when the person conducting experiments believes in it completely.
Newton is reported to have been much more interested in Alchemy than Physics. Why is it that all his time spent in the search of knowledge, only his experiments with physics bore fruit but not his alchemy?
There is a reason why newton discovered the laws of motion and not the philosopher’s stone.

Truth is the narrative which works as Truth.
For any story to become reality, it has to correspond to experience.
If I believe that the sky is green and I myself see it as blue, then that belief fails as my own personal reality. Similarly, collective narrative has to reasonably correspond to a collective experience.

We don’t necessarily need an outside structure of comparison to judge the narratives — we can use their own claims and predictions to discover their Truth value.

By the same logic, Truths can be hierarchic.
Any Reality Narrative which fails less is obviously better than the ‘Truth’ which fails more in experience.If harvest rituals promise bountiful crops and they don’t as compared to the scientific techniques of farming, then the latter is a more reliable Truth for the society than the former. (Whatever anyone wants to believe.)

And the narratives whose claims lie outside the realm of experience by definition like the existence of God, life after death, heaven and hell will become less legitimate as a common reality when other narratives exist.
Narratives which can be judged inside lived experiences are always more reliable because we can check it’s falsity (or the lack of it). Narratives whose base claims are undetermined are dangerous because when it reaches its fanatic heights, people with other beliefs have no way of negotiation — you either have blind belief in them or you are branded a betrayer, heretic or a conspirator.

This in no way means that such narratives are illegitimate. They shouldn’t be completely excluded. They just can’t be relied upon as COMMON Truth, on the basis of which a WHOLE society can make its decisions.

I am not really suggesting that we create any rigid structures. All Truth, it seems, is probable. As we haven’t experienced the whole of existence, proclaiming any narrative as the ultimate TRUTH will be a fallacy of presumption (same applies for the rejection of the possibility of any permanent Truth).
Knowledge should always be open-ended because knowing is always in process. As long as we live we are experiencing beings.
Knowledge is merely a pattern we put into these experiences, which enriches them, binds them and in turn create new experiences in our consciousness.

Personally as a knower, my ultimate aim isn’t to find out the ‘TRUTH’. Especially when the existence of such a truth itself isn’t absolutely assured (although essentially the question remains open).
I see life in terms of experience and hence, to me such narratives are a way to gain a depth in experience.
To unite scattered feelings, events, memories and thoughts. To combine them in different ways. And to experience those different combinations in different ways.
Perhaps this is too much philosophy for one post 😛

–Dee


WHY SO MUCH PHILOSOPHY?

My first answer to that is — Why not?

But I understand why many people are wondering about this question.

We all are children of post-modernism now. We all have known the “anything goes” motto in some way or the other.
Initially it does feel liberating.
I was a fan too not a long time ago.

But then reality strikes.
The dark side of this is that no one can really counter the fanaticism which has slowly saturated our world. And I am not only talking about people with guns, scriptures and suicide vests.

There has been a general taking away of liberties all over the world. Our existence is in threat. Even the existence of our planet. And we don’t have anything to fall back on — to counter such threats in a substantial way.

One may question why this taking away of freedom is a bad thing.
To them I reply, that question’s answer doesn’t really lie in some high-brow theoretical argument, but in plain experience.

And yet until we put them into narrative, we will always be silenced by the fanatics.

The following posts are my attempt to at least try creating a position through which we can fight back —

Trying To Escape 21st Century Nihilism By Finding Out The Inherent Purpose Of Life
https://deerayolia.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/the-inherent-purpose-of-life-is-absurdly-clear/

Attempt To Create A Charter Which Isn’t Too Rigid But Which Gives Us Some Guidelines To Fall Back Onhttps://deerayolia.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/the-new-charter/

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Baboon Banter About Judging People


Judgement

“Never judge a person.”

We have all heard this phrase. We are bombarded by it in social media, popular memes, sit coms, our friends keep repeating this and even our judgmental relatives have started parroting the same fashionable advice.

Although I agree with the accepting spirit which informs the thought, but to follow it as a life-rule is absurd.

All of us have to judge if we can trust a person or not. We have to figure out if the other human being is friendly or hostile to have a meaningful relationship.

If you don’t, you may find yourself lying unconscious on an unknown street mugged, raped or even murdered.

Judgment is necessary for survival. It’s a life skill.

But there is a world of difference between judging and pre-judging.

The latter is about presumptions, prejudices and stereotypes.

It’s not based on the knowledge about the person per se, but about the ideas and formulas one has already imposed on them without checking if they are true or not.

Commenting on a person’s style on the basis of the clothes they wear is judging.

Labeling a person ‘slut’, ‘gay’ or ‘stupid’ on the basis of their clothes is pre-judging because there is no direct relationship whatsoever between the labels and the clothes.

Most of the arguments I hear against judging people is that every judgment is subjective.

It is. So what?

It doesn’t mean that we don’t judge people; it simply means we don’t treat our judgments as divine, permanent and universal Truths.

We keep the possibility of being wrong open and modify our judgments when we actually are.

I agree that we often don’t know from where people come from, their personal history, their internal struggles, demons and anxieties. We can never really know a person completely. We get to see only a part of their lives.

And so we should always be aware of this and remember that our judgments are only about that part of a person which we get to know and not their whole being.

I may criticize a person for having anti-liberal, conservative views about individual choice. It doesn’t mean that I see that person as a monster.

The judgment will only be about certain parts of her ideology. There is no reason why other aspects of her being won’t pleasantly surprise me.

The need for judgment is very clear. If we don’t judge terrorists and rapists we don’t have any grounds to stop them and we end up with a fucked society.

However, always judging other people for the sake of it is foolish, time-consuming and exhausting. Not everything is necessarily right or wrong, good or bad – there is a neutral zone when people are simply different.

Judging a person for having different tastes in music, clothes and ice creams will simply be stupid and is often not needed.

I firmly believe that our judgments should help us figure out people, life and ourselves. But if it makes us confused and miserable then it becomes counterproductive and cumbersome.

Lastly, to end with a cliché, I also believe that we should mostly judge ourselves first before judging others.

Tagged , , , , ,

Why Why?


Why Why?

 

If you dive deep into the abyss of Reason and have that insanity in you which drives you till the very end of your wits,

You will eventually ask:

Why why?

What what?

How how?

The questions will start questioning themselves. The circle of Reason will be complete.

There will be no answers. And that will be the real dawn of truth.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The New Charter


We don’t find anything as self-evident. But, it is through the laborious and painful experiences of millions of people throughout centuries, that we have discovered 5 values which are necessary for a healthy society which helps all its people in their pursuit of happiness.

The New Charter

Fluidity

We have found that the capability of change is indispensable in order to adapt to life .

Throughout history, ideas, facts and ways of life which were thought to be eternal have been wiped out abruptly and with astonishing ease. The world which was flat under our feet for hundreds of eras has turned out to be round. The Sun which was universally seen to be moving has turned out to be stationary and the earth which was our point of unchanging existence has proved to be rotating and revolving. The triumphant physics of Newton which was able to explain almost the whole Universe has been trashed by the new physics of the Quantum.

To blindly believe that the Truth of our age will never change is naive.

We know that a human being has to change according to unique situations. We believe that every human being should be psychologically adept and ready to be fluid like water and change the form, function and abilities of one’s own being without any resistance from within. Mental stability can never be found in permanence but in fluidity.

We also believe that structures and models which mould our social institutions should have this fluidity inbuilt in them. Institutions are meant to help us live our lives better. If they can’t change according to our ever changing lives, then we regard them as defunct and futile. It is vital for any institution to have the ability of spontaneous change in-built in their systems. The present systems also undergo change but it is only through modifications and amendments. Such systems can never be fast enough to adapt to the hyper-fluid world that we see looming in the horizon of the future.

We also reject any knowledge system which has the necessary self-delusion of being permanent and eternal. We do not reject the probability of the existence of such a system, but we have seen that everything can be doubted. Every knowledge system should embrace this doubt about its base beliefs and should not only strive to prove them right, but should always check if they are wrong with equal zeal. If such a system is indeed eternal, then it will be unaffected by such a practice.
For instance, Science bases itself in the presumption that there is an objective world outside of the subjective perception of different human beings. Moreover, they seek to find out laws which are universal and don’t change. These are all presumptions. The world might be a RESULT of our perception. We don’t really know that does our perception perceives an object which already exists or does it CREATE it? Also, we haven’t been to all the parts of the universe and are not omniscient beings who can see the past, present and all future at once. The rules that physics or chemistry finds out may not be universal. Or they might change with time. Or they might not. We don’t really know.

We believe that the true pursuit of knowledge should always be aware that its base presumptions can be wrong, and hence should always keep the question of their validity OPEN.

The validity of every knowledge system should be judged if the reality it claims actually happens. Or in other words, REALITY is simply what works. The system of knowledge should be judged according to its ability to fulfill the claims that it makes. This negates any OUTSIDE structures or systems of judgement or validity criteria.

We also think that the leadership of any social group should be fluid and decided by a specific purpose. When the purpose is achieved or someone else proves to have more ability than this leader, then the position of power should be immediately abandoned. The leadership systems which give a small group of people massive amounts of power over gigantic populations are by default flawed. Kings, Presidents, Prime Ministers and Dictators can never create a truly efficient social organisation simply because the purpose and their reason for power is too wide (administration of whole countries), they can’t possibly know the individual needs of each person they rule and their period of holding power is far too stretched.
And there is no need for leaders where leadership is not required.

 

Liberty

We have also discovered that the enlightened ideal of Freedom has endured extreme attacks against itself. We believe that freedom which doesn’t take away the liberty of others should be allowed to be exercised by individuals.

Liberty means a freedom from oppression, suppression, exploitation and violence. It also means a freedom to fulfill our dreams, desires and reach the epitome of our abilities. This is a precondition for Human Happiness and for innovation, along with fluidity — all of these are inherently helpful for adaptation and progress.

Perhaps the strongest argument for liberty is derived from the experience of people living in societies devoid of it.

The societies under dictatorships or ravaged by fundamentalism stand as prime examples.

It is to be understood that a lack of liberty means control which isn’t designed to hinder harm or is made to suppress people’s abilities. This control is always exercised by a group (usually a small group) and is never interested in the well being of the society as a whole but cares only about its own power position.

 

Heterogeneity

Through our exploration of the world and  history, we know that heterogeneity and multiplicity is the essence of the universe.

We find that every society has diverse individuals and every Human has diverse aspects inside their being which can be complementary or even contradictory. A person has both love and hate and anger and peace coexisting inside them.

We believe that it is inherently good and is needed to live fruitfully in the world — to react to and exist in diverse situations that the world invariably provides us with.

We thus reject any force which seeks to kill or exterminate this diversity — both internal and external — through direct coercion or implicit influence.

It is observed by us that the dominant trend throughout the world to bond people together is through an insistence on sameness and a rejection of difference. We believe that this is a self-deflating method as people are heterogeneous both within and in comparison to others.

We believe it is a superior way to bond people in diversity, both in terms of similarity and difference. No two persons are the same and eventually every social group which is based on sameness cracks from within because it is based on a fiction and will inevitably fall apart.

Also, we believe that the difference which is so often suppressed is in fact enriching and helps an individual grow, change and is able to have diverse viewpoints which helps it in adapting to a diverse universe.

We also observe that diversity is often talked about in social groups. The affect of this is people INSIDE the social groups are often encouraged or forced to destroy their internal diversity in order to mould themselves according to the image of their group.

We believe that an individual is the basic unit of human existence. The heterogeneity inside a human being is the only diversity which really matters in practical terms. Social groups are abstract entities which only have meaning when it refers to individuals. We believe that a person has heterogeneous identities, we believe that this is inherently good and we also believe that no one identity of a person should be given prime importance in order to subordinate or reject the other identities that individual possesses.

We maintain a micro-focus on individuals and refuse to talk in terms of homogenising groups.

We also believe that social institutions should not only preserve individual heterogeneity, but should also encourage the multiplication of this internal diversity through the exchange and cross pollination of identities so that an individual is able to reach and exist in ALL the different identities that a person can possibly achieve.

We plan to explore the limits of the range which nature grants us in terms of being, in terms of thinking, feeling, sensing and existing — a simultaneous nuclear explosion brought about by the eternal fusion and fission of identities in ALL individuals.

 

Justice

It is observed that Justice is a human need. That people should get what they deserve. If a person does harm, s/he should be harmed. If a person does good, s/he should be rewarded.

The main problem which arises is in defining what is good and what is bad. It is an ever going debate. But we firmly believe that a lot of things become clear and simplified through a direct experience of the event. The intellectual reasoning seems hollow without it.

However, we also accept that there are no universal rules of morality like there are the universal rules of physics. It is based on the people involved in a situation, the context and the subsequent outcomes. An element of subjectivity will always prevail, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that ALL of them are justified or right.

People have made flimsy arguments that things like violence, starvation, rape, poverty and so on are not necessarily bad, and their value judgement will always be subjective. To such people, we recommend that they EXPERIENCE such events and then tell us if their value judgements should be based on mere opinions.

We don’t yet have an answer, but we acknowledge the fact that the current systems of justice have severe shortcomings and need to be either revolutionised or replaced. However, we also acknowledge that they aren’t entirely defunct and until some bright alternative is found, we should continue with the same institutions while trying to reform them.

 

Uniqueness

We believe that every human being is born unique. They are not equal. They are not unequal.

We reject any universal standards or measures of judgement.

We know that each person has his or her own unique traits and hence, a unique path of progress.

We believe that preserving this path for every individual and the attainment of this path is good for the society as a whole.

The value of every individual is inherently unique and priceless, as no individual is same or born again.

The destruction of this uniqueness for some imagined and accepted model of value or goodness is a loss which can never be compensated.

We believe in hyper-customization of every institution, especially educational ones, in order to cater to the needs and desires of every Human — a necessary micro-focus on every individual.

We envisage that the very space and streets of the society will instantly transform and mould themselves according to unique needs of every person.

 

 

This is our vision for a perfect society which is like a womb which nourishes every individual, helps them find their own path of self-fulfilment and derives priceless benefit from their unique achievement.

We stand by our values and reject any enemies who threaten them. There is no tolerance for the intolerant. There is no freedom for people who threaten freedom.

We are not plagued by indecisiveness or directionless-ness as the era which immediately preceded us was.

Many great philosophers have predicted an end of History — as if it is a problem which only needs resolution and hence an end.

We don’t think Human History has even started. Until and unless all the societies of the world have achieved this womb-like state which we mention, all that happens is of no consequence in the wider arch of grand History. The majority of the Humans are struggling to survive — reaching the epitome and peak of their being is a distant dream.

History will begin with the New Charter.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Quest For Truth


Existence

 

In order to find what was before existence, what will be after it and what it is, we have to peel the layers of our own presence until we have undone ourselves — reached that point where existence and non-existence cease to be apart.

The absolute truth, hence, requires our absolute death as a precondition.

We can’t be IN existence and discover non-existence.
All theories about such a subject will be mere conjectures.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Baboon Banter On Morality


mORALITY

 

The Baboon has been going mad-er day-by-day and his babbling is the only thing which has prevented his total mental breakdown.It is the special subject of morality which has baked his brains into a plum cake.

The Baboon realises that morality is relative. It is different for every monkey, slug and elephant.
Morality doesn’t exist in the world. It is created by our morbid minds.
That is precisely the reason why some cultures find human sacrifice as a way to appease Gods and some others define it to be an abominable crime.

What is good and what is bad for the society is based on which moral codes have managed to gain acceptance and influence with the majority.

But does this mean that anything goes?
Or should this subjectivism just lead to empty, meaningless nihilism?

Before the Baboon wrecks his head by banging it on a stone, or it spontaneously explodes, he should make something clear.

The Baboon agrees that moral codes have traditionally been used as a tool for power and control.
The interests of the moral codes preached by the society is often not good for the whole society, but the profit and privilege for the minority elites.

Moral codes frequently create social norms which seek to confine individuals in a fixed identity, creating group divisions while eliminating any difference.

The most efficient example of both of these are gender norms and the morality based on it.

In a patriarchal society, morality often has double standards which favours males — like the importance of female chastity is often paramount, while males are allowed more social freedom.  It is often OK for males to have premarital, or even extramarital, sex; a woman is often labelled as a ‘whore’ or even stone pelted in the same situation.

Gender and gender norms first divide the population into two genders, homogenise their identities and behaviours of individuals inside each gender, and finally exclude individuals who are different like the people belonging to the LGBTQ community.

Morality and moral codes of the society have never been good for the society.
But does this mean we abandon the concept of morality altogether?
Or does the subjectivity of morality makes everything right?

Does this mean Nazism, slavery, colonialism and patriarchy become al right?

In what the intellectual brains like to call as post-modernism, this seems to be exactly the battle call — “Anything goes”.

But this only seems to be true in arguments, debates and discussions.

Experience assertively differs.

Can we really justify the experience of those who were slaughtered under the Nazi regime? Can we justify the experience of  the slaves? Can we justify the experience of the colonised? Can we justify the experience of the victims of patriarchy?

At least, the Baboon can’t.

And this is precisely the base of the Baboon’s morality — experience.

It is only through the experience of a situation that we can ascertain the morality of the situation. There maybe nothing right in any situation, but there are things which cannot be justified, and hence, are wrong.

We have arrived at a point of moral emptiness only because of too much chat-chat and not much experience. Because most of our experiences are virtual we have lost our touch with life itself.

That is why some people can parody the 9/11 in an online image board, while people who had actually experienced it still get nightmares even after 13 years.

The Baboon rejects traditional structures of morality.
This in no way means that the Baboon doesn’t believe in morality.

The Baboon believes that every situation is unique in itself, and ethical theory is defunct because it often generalises situations and forms rules according to it like a wannabe science.
That is why moral codes don’t work.

Morality is an individual activity.

It should be based on empathy, rationality and intuition, rather than traditional bullshit.

This is because tradition ascribes the label of right to things which cannot be justified through empathy like marital rape, honour killings or burning people at stake.

Morality should be a reaction to a situation rather than blind following of rules.

The Baboon believes in the Moral Compass but not in Moral Codes.

Morality is subjective and may change from person to person, according to different situations.

This in no way means an individual should forsake morality altogether.

And here ends the Baboon Banter on Morality.

Eat your cupcakes!

 

— X —

The Baboon apologises for being late.

The world was on the brink of a nuclear war.

Or maybe the Baboon just had a bad dream.

The Baboon loves you.

Oink!

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,