Being present

Being present

Sieve the mess, take all the conversations that you hear, listen.
What it means? What it doesn’t mean? What it say? What it doesn’t say?
Listen carefully.
Like arched humans panning the creek bed in hot humid sun for days and days for few specks of gold dust, if lucky a nugget.
Search for the strand of truth.
Read whatever you can.
Choose what is passed unquestioned as culture, tradition, faith, rational, fiction and non-fiction.  
What does it means? What it doesn’t mean? What it say? What it doesn’t say?
Read carefully.
Search for the strand of truth.
Watch. Watch carefully for what is presented, and not presented.
Keep a keen sense on what is mainstreamed. What is news? What is not news?
What is entertainment? What is not entertainment? Who decides? What decides?
Watch carefully.   
Pound day in day out like miserable humans eviscerating e-waste from noxious landfill mounds for few grams of copper or brass or whatever that fetch food.
And when you find that nugget of gold, that piece of precious metal
That strand of truth
That is unique to your being on this planet.
Declare it.    
Shout, scream, yell. Louder.
Take that strand of truth
Stitch the fabric to uncover the universe.   


Firefly

In the darkest of night a soul with lantern knocks
I let him in with a noiseless breach and warmest smile 
Like a comet from the sky he fires into the room with abandon gaiety
Propelled in his own delight to corners, up the cupboard and under the bed
His rear flickering the brief sight while he ponder the dark in rapid stride
Exhausted he sat on my palm ever pulsating the lively warmth
The embers setting a primal crypt that synapses decode in blooming script
A planet of colors in faraway space, arranged in patterns and waves of shifting shades      




At the border
So they stand facing each on the rugged mountains
With stones and sticks, fists and barbed hate
They squint to get a clear view of the enemy
Unaccustomed like lost spirits in the whistling night
They grope in the hypoxic air of the altered world
To find their own shadows fighting its own survival
In the barren land of imaginary lines
Devoid of reason and love.  
 

The thuggery of history

I happen to see this video this morning in which a British white man standing in front of Churchill’s statue admonishes those who were tarnishing it by scribbling racist. He says if it wasn’t for Churchill it would be Nazis ruling. This brings into light an important aspect related to controlling the narration and presenting a benign patronizing history with chosen protagonists as saviors without whom the world would be hell hole indeed bereft of morals and that is: if history didn’t happen the way we think it did then we were doomed. This ofcourse is problematic, and these are people appropriated by the system to protect itself. Facts would help. Churchill was an unabashed racist. If he was being ‘practical’ in the context of time then it is workable but if he is being projected as carrier of high morals then he will be demolished and smithered into pieces. Second fact is that he represented a colonial nation, necessarily racist, despite the counter narrations as benign force of goodness occupying to civilize people. Indeed native feudals in the occupied countries who benefited from the exploitative arrangement and were conduit and facilitators created narrations of colonial benevolence. Third fact is to demolish projection of history into future. There is a devious attempt to seep in narration through fear of unknown. This must be resisted. If Churchill wasn’t there somebody else would be there, and that somebody else would be equally racist or may be not. If he or she wasn’t racist and firmly took stand against colonialism then there is something to admire. Further, what if Nazis won? It also is very much conceivable that as they would have collapsed in their own weight or local would have arranged resistance to weaken or that Nazis would have split in an ensuing fratricide or resistance within. Anything can be speculated or even logically extended.

This dominant assertion of history that without a chosen racist representing a colonial nation the world was doomed is sickening, indeed laughable if it were not for the hold of the history that normalize and valorize these. This victory of allies that is celebrated as historical victory against forces of evil is also problematic. During 1940s US was viciously racist nation where blacks had no rights while USSR was ruled by Stalin –a brutal dictator known to have executed and incarcerated millions of people. Britain was to hold colonies for few more decades. If it was question of defeating bigger evil this estimation of bigger is from the stand point of historical convenience. Who decides what is the biggest threat? What is immediate is always the biggest threat. For Indians it was colonizers (and native caste feudals stampeding for power), for blacks in US it was white racist Americans, for exploited Russians it was the state agencies controlled by dictator. Britain left Indian subcontinent with arguably one of the worst human tragedies, millions were killed, maimed and displaced. Most of the contemporary problems around the world can be traced to colonialism. There are word defecators, gainfully recruited by feudal state controlled by coterie who profited from colonialism, who despicably argue that if colonialism wasn’t there India as country would be not be existing (there wouldn’t even be administration, or hold your breath, railways!). It is possible India would be smaller countries. So what is wrong? It is also possible that India would be a much bigger country. So what is wrong? The point here is speculation cannot be justification for past, nor can it be reason to allow the control of history. What is much saddening is the settlers from erstwhile colonial nations in Britain who are appropriated as representing the example of benign narration of history. It also extends to contemporary set up to add inclusiveness and multicultural.           

Colonizers have morphed into civilized nations, and it is good to evolve, but this attempt at controlling history to create narration of civilized into past will be resisted. Repressed histories will find its way out. Scribbling of racist onto statue of racist is part of that assertion. British PM (direct beneficiary of colonialism, and characteristically represents all the entitled buffoonery) may spew his bile on this “subverted by thuggery”. Ironical, the word thug got into English from Hindi. The word finds its origin from “organized gang, professional robbers and murderers”. If history was written to represent the truth then the word used would not be thuggery but britishery. Subverted by britishery. That is how history is written.

The audacity to play high morals.

(Painting herein is Paul Klee’s Angelus Novus (1920) from where philosopher Walter Benjamin’s derived ‘angel of history’)

Creating history. Wrenching the narration.

History is not attacked. History is created by wrenching the narration from those who seek to control past. From those who use brutal narrative powers of past to hide the memories from the present. Those who seek to alter memories of atrocities in the memoirs of nonviolence and trophies of tolerance. Entitlements of atrocities is presented as benign version to fatten on misery. There comes an occasion when reality is excavated and flagged by dislodging the statues of horror and stamping the semantics into forgotten meaning. There comes an occasion when reality is forced to be pushed down the throats as a lifesaving tonic against illusions.

What is happening in the streets of US and UK (as also in the campus of Ghana few years back) is the expression of people who have been oppressed for too long, who have been forced to adhere to normalized narrations of atrocities as history while hideous protagonists celebrated and pedestaled. There is no reason why these symbols of racism (and caste) should exist. The reason why they exist point to tacit acceptance by powerful controller of narration, an attempt to put common people in their place. It is also opportunist benefit from the system by playing for the entrenched values. That this obnoxious slave trader’s statue find a place in public space is gross, an insult on the memories of people who underwent unimaginable horror. These presence shows moral vacuum and inability to be even decent to the memories. Manipulative fattened fluffs who manufacture high moral angst by playing local guardians to herds (the worst the better) are very much complicit. These lazy patronizers look easy references to latch on for gains. They adhere to feudal structure, and work out their increment gains by normalizing these while pointing to save the different “other” (the more the “other” plays different, indeed uncivilized regressive, better chance that they be herded into narration of benefit). The elite section who vehemently and vociferously position as liberals on every passing occasion are very much complicit. These kind of symbols of horror wouldn’t exist in public space if they valued people, if they were concerned about their pain. They celebrated festering wounds of discriminated, marginalized and exploited as representation of their reality and even have the audacity to patronize these as their benevolence. The way colonial feudal legacy is being presented in UK is a study on how barbarism is sophisticated into the garb of democracy. Monarchy is being humored as royals. It is the same structure that orchestrated colonial loot and atrocities all across the world. They nourished native nincompoops who promptly created narration of colonial benevolence as history. They also meanwhile worked to replace their own horror in the garb of democracy. 

History is always rewritten. History as continuous narration of war, megalomaniac kings and kingdoms and destruction, as a source of revivalism to assert herds into religions and a space of jingoistic fiction to work herds into nation, is creating much problems.  The apt version is the one that create understanding as part of humanity as also create a sense of humbleness and unique fortune as member of humanity. It’s the democratization of history. It’s essentially the beginning of history. It is being written by people. With their own hand. Their own version in social media without any need for any arbitrators. It can no longer be ignored.         

Evolving a humanistic language game

So the popular illustration goes like this: What if lion learn to speak English, will you understand him? Wittgenstein, a prominent philosopher of 20^th century, says I cannot understand the lion’s language because I don’t understand what his world is like. To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life. Language has natural setting of interrelations that form the language game. You have to be an insider to understand this game, or shall we say the nuance.    

The earlier Wittgenstein proposed that we cannot talk anything meaningful about religion since these are something that is unsaid like moral, good, so on that the use of language are meaningless noise. The later Wittgenstein gave space to religion, and was no longer dismissive of religious talks. He sought to understand the language game in religious context to describe what role does this play in people’s life? This is the point of reference. He insists that religious language game is different from scientific language game hence these shouldn’t be mixed and used as judgment specifically by scientific over religious. Sure, the way language is used in religious context has different connotation but words do belong to the ‘same family’ hence there is an umbilical link that connects despite these negations.  

I reckon we can easily propose, extending the same line of argument, that there is as humans evolve and enlighten an understanding of shared humanist language game. A collective alliance of higher thoughts for instance like democracy, liberty and freedom. This therefore becomes overarching parameter and the basis of evaluation. So this attempt at mystifying religion into some other realm must be checked and negated. Every system that impacts human and seek to control must be demystified and deconstructed. It must be scrutinized and not be allowed to be reduced to problems of semantics. Primitive anachronistic system that create regressive mindset, segregate humans and isolate them from reality and surrounding with juvenile conceptions feeding on insecurities should not be allowed to be mystified, to dehumanize. This kind of special consideration to the system that is having serious impact on humanity because we may not understand its context is a dangerous position especially in the contemporary world we live in. It is diminishing the capacity to think as also negating possibility to evolve into better. It is a source of degradation as also uniquely irresponsible. It suits the purpose of status quoist and exploiters. We have to keep evolving to use humanistic language game as a parameter of reference for any transgression of freedom and liberty.

It is no surprise that Wittgenstein found quite a receptive audience in Britain that seeks to preserve feudal systems like monarchy (in the western euphemism of royal) as also its religion-church as part of democracy. The impasse that UK finds itself in during this pandemic has very much to do with these compromised foundation. It is also not surprising that mediocre Indians latch on to it since they hinge their high morals by mystifying putrid pit (it ofcourse works with colonial angst suffering fattened fluffs ready to patronize lowest denominator –that in itself is extension of racism). For mediocre Indians with limited philosophical tradition (juvenile conception within the mainstream squatter frame are embarrassment that is being constructed as Indian philosophy –absolute waste of time and energy except maybe for the likes of intellectually compromised word defecators. What is relevant, indeed refreshing and humbling, in Indian philosophy is found outside the putrid pit. This is vibrant philosophical-spiritual-social space that traces from Buddha to Nanak to Kabir to all the enlightened saints that in recent times have been severely undermined by castetva forces, indeed desecrated with manipulation of casteist as mahatma –it’s a serious transgression on ideas of enlightenment) mystification was easy way to present itself as exotic. I seriously object to including squatter ensconced juvenile wastrel thoughts and packing it as eastern philosophy. Much enlightened thoughts have come from East Asia. It cannot be mixed and mystified with squatter’s BS. One may argue that other societies from where compelling philosophies have emerged had slavery, colonialism, racism and misogynism so on. Ofcourse it is disturbing to know that beloved Greek philosophers had no problem with slaves or that Kant was racist. Not trying to condone but these were atleast based on physical demarcation, some objective facts, people who were outsiders-defeated soldiers, race or even gender, but caste (extending to casteism –that is cunningly sought to be separated from caste and normalized) is unlike this -as also it is sought to be normalized making it a grievous matter. It finds difference among similar people, living in same society and deviously seeks through insecurities of faith. This makes it a worst inhuman conception that creates a cannibalistic society that seeks lowest reference for the best ideas. A mediocrity thriving society that really haven’t contributed much to humanity except population as cheap labor -a modern form of slavery. The casteist feudal deep state nurtures replicators. Rare instance of smart sensitive people, especially children, are easily cannibalized by the society if not by the family itself. Such is the level of degradation this society has achieved (now you see spewing garbage by youngsters in social media, the worst kind that only religions and market have capacity to produce) but the constant self-assurance as god’s chosen one’s –the incorrigible psychosis of entitlement, is what makes it dangerous.                

Wittgenstein, like Marx, is excitingly insightful and helps us understand the reality better but these arguments are flawed in many ways. There is nothing wrong in intellectualizing (this particularly true in frivolous nature of world we live in wherein the market onslaught posits thinking as waste) indeed it is needed. Where one completely agree with Wittgenstein is the assertion that language cannot be taken for granted. Though he was working in different context (structure of the language is defining the world) but it cannot be denied that language is source of control, it is used to control narration. The reality, history and even future is sought to be controlled through clever use of language and power. Market, religion and politicians -dictators have but used language to control.  Semantics is part of the narration, it is very much the agent of control.     

Philosophers, over the centuries, who have contributed and extended human thinking and thoughts have immensely contributed to evolution of mind therefore the way we associate with the world in heightened responsibility and freedom. All the modern values and progressive thoughts have insights and contribution from enlightened thinkers. Yes one would agree with Arendt for active thinkers, those who engage with emerging reality and threats, and provide compelling humanistic alternatives and insightfully reveal human nature. Wittgenstein is very 20^th century philosopher, and he better stay there. There is truly nothing for him in 21^st century. This is the age of Spinoza. As Einstein wrote, he believed in “Spinoza’s God –who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind”. This calls for an evolved language game that doesn’t seek to mystify but encourage inquisitiveness and engagement. 

PS: unfortunately I got diverted by religion. The original reason to put in Wittgenstein was to bring out the point that when West deals with complicated societies like India (where things are not as apparent as it seems) they tend to be complacent. They borrow words and associate with their own context but it is from a different language game that has its own nuance. Wittgenstein was quite prescient here (again that doesn’t mean it cannot be understood nor it must be mystified, nor that one can completely agree with him). Casteist feudals therefore used words like say nonviolent and vegetarian which in western perception comes out egalitarian but in Indian context extremely disturbing. This different language game (as also patronizing low expectation that fails to get involved…indeed racist) is the reason why there is confusion. What cannot be accepted find acceptance because it is mystified, and there is no attempt made to demystify since it thought to be different alien language game beyond our means to comprehend. This has led to increasing misery as also normalization of worst forms of human dealing. Indeed west owes (particularly Britain) an apology for nurturing worst kind of people and systems. Also, I do admire Wittgenstein but his subtleties seem to have given space to religion to firm itself (I even happen to watch a video of preacher introducing Wittgenstein). This really cannot be a reference for challenges of 21^st century. It must be understood, thanked for the insight, and firmly rejected.      

Environment day

Witnessed a Python roadkill on morning walk