Our Modern Crisis: Death Of Superman

Concluding part to series. Previous posts here and here

The gist of previous posts was

1. As far as man is concerned, evolution transforms from a purely biological phenomena to one transcending social, technological and spiritual dimensions.

2. This evolution, transcendent, tends to cleave a man as  projections on various planes, biological, social, technological and spiritual, more often than not at tension with each other.

3. Proper aim of philosophy, science, religion any system of knowledge created by human endeavour should be to harmonize the multifaceted nature of evolution. This in turn implies the aim should  to keep man's projections in harmony, to project a "becoming" man. Only that much can be expected, anything more should be left up to evolution

The end of our runaway evolutions is at some unknown point in future. when the synthesis of man's projections is complete, and they unite to create a transformed man. All the concepts are preparatory stage for this glorious transformation when out of becoming man, Superman emerges . Even the gods as mighty as they are but intermediate staging something staggering

This idea, of a transformed man, was first proposed by Nietzsche in form of Ubermensch (lit. overman). However, Nietzsche, his vision restricted by receding lights of Christianity and blinding supernova of biological evolution. Consequently, Ubermensch became a material counterpoint to Jesus Christ, a spiritual balm offered by Christianity for material affliction. As a result Ubermensch became a prisoner of biology, condemned to chase sensual pleasures, even if that was not intended by Nietzsche.

It was Guru Aurobindo Ghosh who perhaps realized this fundamental concept underlying observable reality in life divine with emergence of supramental being. In doing so, he was synthesizing concept from ancient Hindu thought with Theory of Evolution. This is Superman.

I believe ancients were sub-consciously aware of evolution and Superman. The way they accommodated this awareness into their world view differed from civilization to civilization. Greeks realized this accommodation of evolution in politics, in philosophy and in natural sciences by eudaimonia, but they missed the spiritual, hence missing Superman.

Hindus, in my biased view, had keenest grasp of the evolution and Superman. They accommodated their view by infusing earthly with spiritual and spiritual with earthly. As a consequence the line between faith and world so stark in west, is blurry at best in India.

The Jews had their God but instead of pointing man to Superman, this "insecure, jealous God" imprisoned the man in a prison of covenants and laws, circumscribing his evolution in philosophy, natural science or spirituality. Christianity compromised between Greeks and Jews. Its God reached to man, holding promise for man to flourish philosophically and spiritually. Yet even Christian God was derived from Jewish God  and remained insecure and aware of its incompleteness, in the end Christianity inverted the vision of evolution and Superman, and replaced man as starting point to Superman, with man as end result of fall of man, evolution with original sin, and Superman himself with grace.  It was a rebellion, not of Adam against God, but of Christian God against Superman!

But as inverted as Christian world view was, even though it rebelled against evolution and Superman, it still had the saving grace of a vision of man beyond his biological self, it held a promise, however confounded,  of man's elevation.

Superman survived.

And then renaissance happened.

Like Christianity, it inherited from Greeks as well as Jews (as did it from Christianity itself), however it attempted a different approach at reconciling. It retained that Jewish framework of Laws, but killed the God, it retained Greek science but excluded eudaimonia.

The end result was even more devastating than Christianity. For renaissance man, devoid of promise of evolution,  science, philosophy became end in itself and not the means, their pursuit meant for intellectual pleasure and not evolution. Devoid of God or any means to connect to spiritual self, renaissance man turned inwards, and made himself the end, and instead of evolution there was degeneration, instead of flourishing, there was withering, and instead of Superman. man became Last man

And this is how Superman died.

Our Modern Crisis: Ancient Discontent (Updated)

Previous post might have given the impression that we moderns have stumbled on the crisis on our own. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The genesis of modern crisis is ancient, rooted in the human nature itself.

The human nature, transcending evolution, always becoming, ever dynamic, is also the scene of a struggle. A struggle between its projections.

The biological man is in existential confrontation with social man who in turn is challenged by technical man who is a rebel against the spiritual  man. It is not in power to man to stop or end this confrontation. This confrontation will resolve only when ever unfolding evolutions draws to its unknown conclusion.

Update: In simple words, this means there is always a tension between an individual and society, society and technical progress, technical progress and spiritual faith.

So if the man can't bring the confrontation to its end, what can he do? The overarching aim of philosophy, politics, science, any body of knowledge as conceived by humans should be to  try to mitigate the frequent destruction unleashed by evolution even as it carries human to next stages of his transformation. 

Our Modern Crisis: Background

Ecce Homo

We are missing it. Beyond the incessant chatter of media traditional as well as social, beyond even the rarefied atmosphere of policy debates, there lurks a crisis. I doubt if many are aware about it, much less attempted to grasp its seriousness.

Our modern crisis is about true nature of man. Western politics is sharply divided into Conservatives and Liberals. Yet despite their often bitter partisan rancour, they have fundamentally same view about nature of man. To both, man is an atom, isolated entity imprisoned in his biological form, completely defined by personal virtues and vices, by his intellect and desires. Whether he is triumphant or defeated, he stands alone.
Man is atrophied, static. Man is a mere "being".

Let me humbly suggest that this conception of man is flawed. Man in fact is dynamic, he has progressed from biological evolution itself to higher forms of evolution. Man is "becoming".

It is true that man has a biological form, but that's not his limit. He projects onto higher planes. He is a nexus in social network. He is a shard of global data. He is a wisp of reason. Finally man is the very part of cosmic concious.

What a magnificent creature man is!

Alas how he has been sundered by simple minds 

Zeroth Law

Consider this post as addendum to previous one, while I don't think much of first principles, I do defer to what I modestly like to refer as Gaurav's zeroth law. It is simply this, in my opinion in order for any social theory to be taken seriously it must be non nihilistic. That is to say, assuming human nature to be what it is, society ordered on the basis of that particular social theory must not annihilate itself and must survive and thrive

Cylindrical Elephants & Spherical Cows

Nowadays political discourse, whether online or in mainstream, evokes sadness tinged with a feeling of Sisyphean futility of it all. Earlier when one fancied oneself young the feeling that this evoked was of rage.

Political commentators when not perpetually chasing the breaking news in a manner reminiscent of street mongrels,  remind one of the parable of blind men and elephant, with discourse focussed on specific issues.

Now there is something to said about this approach, focusing on a small specific part and studying reducing the complexity of problem, divide and conquer in technical lingo.

Problem though is that human condition does not yield to convenient, clean division, on the contrary it is messy, one part running into other. The result, all the well constructed theorems and model assuming the isolation and independence of  parts are ruined by the intrusion of totality.

So may be going piecemeal is not correct, may be our reasoning should be anchored on first principles. A tempting thought no doubt, and one which many do succumb to. Unfortunately this too is deceptive, a dialectical siren song for those chasing intellectual certainty, and the results as predictable, intellectual wreck on treacherous shoals of reality.

Every scientific query proceeds within the framework of assumptions. Assumptions simplify problem domain and make working on problem earlier. This is useful as long as care is taken that simplification do not filter anything essential. This is next to impossible in study of social affairs.

First principles are dangerous precisely because they cloak incompleteness of assumption in intellectual certitude. Hence spherical cows.

So what is the solution. Short answer, there aren't any. Longer answer, it is not possible to completely eliminate the complexity, it is possible however to mitigate it somewhat, by not focussing exclusive on one domain, by making it a habit of stepping back and taking it all in.

Unless we understand elephant's nature we can't hope to tame it.

APHORISM: FREEDOM

(Originally posted on CRI)

1.  First step towards being free is to realize you are enslaved.
2. Freedom is like zero gravity. Both can only be simulated in this world, and never truly achieved.

QUOTES: BREAD AND CIRCUS DEMOCRACY

(Originally posted at CRI)

“A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally has no internal feedback for self correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens…which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it…which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses’

“Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader–the barbarians enter Rome.”

To Sail Beyond the Sunset

The Political Animal

(Note: Originally posted at CRI)



For those who came late, we at CRI are having Aniversarypalooza, so far the posts have been nothing less than outstanding. This post is a modest attempt to bring the average down.


To be honest, I was not sure about the direction to take in the post which will suit the occasion. Sure, I could try an intellectual overview of the conservatism, but to quote Oscar Wilde, I am not young enough to know everything, nor am I articulate enough to condense my views in a single coherent post.


That said,  when I was told about the anniversary palooza one thing stuck with me, the article should be first person, that is it should bring out one’s perspective. This appealed to me as the reason one views the things the way one does clarifies the perspective.


*Before we proceed here is your obligatory jargon alert . You have been forewarned *


So, what drives our politics and informs our positions ? One usually answers the question intellectually, in form of abstract ideas and impersonal values.

Yet, to truly answer this we have to go beyond the certitude of abstract and grapple with whimsy of humanity.

I was introduced to the titular phrase, Political Animal, while reading politics (more on it later). At that time the phrase struck me as clever but nothing more. After that I kept encountering it on occasion, mostly from our resident Chicago boy.


However, it was not much later, that I grokked its true significance, and, if I may say so, true magnificence of this deceptively pithy phrase.


Much of our political discussions are based upon the implicit assumption that involvement in politics is a deliberate and reasoned act on our part. Our all political theorization work from that assumption.


Yet what if the assumption is not true. It is my contention that as the phrase suggests, politics is a very basic human instinct as opposed to an act of reason. Politics in various forms pervades human condition. Whether it is work place, or peers, or family or larger social gathering, consciously or otherwise, politics is always an influence.


This raises the question, why we humans have political instinct, surely if our elder cousins the adorable Chimpanzees can do without politics, who are we upstarts to say otherwise.

Many among us will answer that it is greed which causes the politics. That is true but still not helpful, for you see, greed is the first principle of nature. A short (but not very accurate) summary of  the selfish gene could be, “we are all greedy”.

A better to our question is, “Politics confers evolutionary advantage”.


“Surely you must be joking!”, I hear you. Let me assure, I am not joking and further I am not Shirley either. To understand why it is so, let’s revisit the Chimpanzees. Now they may or may not be political, but they are certainly not adorable, in fact they are quite nasty. And they are not the exception. Nature as a matter of rule is less Lion King and (overwhelmingly) more Fight Club.


Why is this so? Well because scarcity exercises its tyranny over the living. To survive all the creatures must compete against each other. In this competition, violence decides the winner. And yet violence has its downsides for one, while violent struggles eliminate the rivals, it also leaves the winner weaker and therefore at disadvantage.


Politics is nature’s rudimentary solution to this (I am skipping few steps here). To paraphrase Freud, the first person to indulge in politics instead of violence was founder of civilization.
To summarize,  ”All politics is about control”.


This is far from the nobility ascribed to politics by Amar. It may sound disheartening but politics far from being intellectual exercise is more accurately described as a reflection of our baser instincts.


Yet there is more to politics than power which elevates it from a reflex of id, a mere dismal science so as to say. Simply put politics is also a manifestation of our social personae.


Human behaviour like that of any other social animal is influenced by two mutually contradictory forces. One is self interest, and the other is group interest. If an animal always acts in self interest it ends up harming the group, however acting otherwise puts itself at disadvantage.


These two forces are resolved by modification of  individual’s self identity. Simply put, affinity to the larger group and identification with it become a part of individual’s self image. In Freudian terms it manifests as superego.
Thus our political instinct is also an evolutionary means to contribute to group utility.


Thus our aphorism can be modified to, “All politics is control, except when it is utilitarian “

The Black Swan

(Note: Originally posted at CRI)


So this is a short one. Anyway it seems that I am one of the last guys to have read The Black Swan. I bought the book during a book shopping binge under the impression that it had something to do with sub-prime crisis. As it turns out, while the book does address financial shenanigans, its scope is much broader, more accurately described as epistemology, or study of knowledge, which, as a conservative,  happens to interest me.
Now I will not claim that book exposed me to new information, however what it did was much more valuable. The Black Swam has helped me to begin seeing existing information in a new light, emphasizing what was previously underestimated.

I think that insight can be readily applied to politics. So here are some takeaways (in brief) from the book as applied to politics.

1. We can not predict
Properly speaking this applied more to punditry than to actual politics. The short term politics, which most of punditry is concerned with, is susceptible to too much uncertainty to enable any prediction.
In the near long term though, politics can be predicted. Here my definition of “near long” is rather tautological for I take it to be period between major realignment, such as Mandal or Ayodhya.

2. All ideologies are narratives (to some extent), and all politics is opportunistic (to considerable extent)
I find the conventional understanding of politics erroneous. It is assumed that there is a nice committee of philosopher/meta-physicians/policy wonks which come up with a nice set of dos and donts, which is called ideology and which is the starting point for politics.

In reality (or so I hold), politics is a *programming jargon alert* continuously iterative process  with starting points, if there were any, lost in the mist of history. Which leaves us to rely on dynamics of politics, sure people have some ideas in the starting but what determines their actions is expediency, they have to compromise and align with others for power, which is ultimately what politics is about, if these alliances are stable over long period of time, their (initially) disparate ideas are merged to form an ideology. This happened both in case of American conservatism as well as American liberalism.

3. Narrative is important.
Why does the above happen? It’s because humans love narratives, thinking in terms of sequence of cause and effect is so natural to us that to actually do otherwise take real effort. This is hardly surprising, we instinctively turn to narrative as it makes world more predictable and hence more safe (to be more precise safety is an illusion), evolution-wise this is fantastic. An effect of this, to paraphrase Orwell, those ho control the narrative also control the levers of power.  Which is why left still survives and thrives despite being a disaster.

4. Hindsight is 18/20.
Politics is actually messier than what appears in rear view mirror. The reason, as told in the previous points, we tend to narrate politics as a logical end result of intermediate step which were only determined by the clearly demarcated ideologies and (that mythical beast) voice of the public, whereas in reality where politics end up is significantly determined not by the ideologies but by political manoeuvring resulting in unexpected political events such as ascension of India Gandhi.

Turned out this wasn’t that short after all. Oh, well!

How should we learn from American conservatism (or anything else for that matter)

(Note: Originally posted on CRI)

“What can we (meaning Indians) learn from American conservatism ?”,  this is a question that is being  frequently asked and discussed by many Indian bloggers, generally belonging to what who can be called, for lack of any better term, centre right.

Now I have a problem with this question. This may seem weird considering how much I obsess over American politics. To describe my unease will be difficult, however it is simple to illustrate it.
See this is Indian democracy,

jugaad

And this is American democracy

benz

Now most of the times when above question is discussed, the answers tantamount to borrowing steering or transmission from Benz, force it into our contraption and expect contraption to work like Benz. Unfortunately this is not how machine, or for that matter democracy, work.

Democracy, put it simply, is hard. It is a complex system consisting of interdependent sub-systems and components. To make things, well, more complicated, unlike machines humans are complicated with (allegedly) free will, they have feelings, which makes any system dependant on their actions, such as democracy, difficult to design or predict.

Learning about social institutions, which ultimately democracy is as is economics, from external examples without the broader context in which they function is fraught with danger. Yet that is the mistake we have repeatedly made, first romance with socialism, and now flirting with libertarianism.

So does this mean that it is impossible to learn from outside. Far from it! But to really learn instead of focusing on the specifics and the contemporary, we have to go one level higher and investigate the factors which influenced the evolution of American democracy to its present state. Only when we have knowledge of these factors we can actually judge what will work in our context, and how exactly should we go about re-designing our institutions.
But whatever we do,  let’s not get carried away with it.

The Awakening

The sound of clattering instruments broke the silence of the lab. The table, which, except for the chair, was the only piece of furniture in the sparse room, had toppled and fallen, spilling the instruments on the floor. The scientist tried unsuccessfully to steady his shaking body by gripping the chair. Even as he steadied himself, his chest for the second time exploded with searing pain.

He fumbled for the medicine in his pockets. The search seemed agonizingly long to him, even though it took barely few seconds to locate the medicine. He swallowed the medicine, desperate gesture of a dying man. For he knew that he was dying. He suffered from a rare congenital heart condition, in any other time he could not have expected to survive infancy, but the advances in medical sciences meant that he had made to late twenties.

However even science had its limits and now he lay on the cold floor gasping for the breath, losing his consciousness. All of a sudden, just as candle burns brightly before extinguishing, the fog of pain lifted over him lifted. He admitted that he had failed.  For his whole life, he had pursued the mystery of universe, hoping to unlock it, but in the end death had defeated him. A sudden despondency gripped him, he could not bear the thought of dying without unraveling the unknown. It was then that he had a conversion. He, who had rejected God as ancient superstition his whole life, became a believer in the last throes of his life. In sheer desperation he begged for God. 


Slowly darkness enveloped him.


Slowly he regained consciousness, of course strictly speaking this was not true, as he didn't possess any material body, his existed, for lack of better word, as an Idea. The new sensations were strange to him, he could sense the physical world, but in the same way we normally watch TV, he was not part of it any longer. He, again for lack of better word,felt detached. Finally he was free of emotions which bind and prod men. 


Gradually he grew comfortable with his new surroundings. Although he didn't posses any sensory organs, his sensory perception was beyond what biology could device or mind can imagine. Tentatively he started to explore. He found that he could observe any phenomena irrespective of its location in the universe or the physical scale at which it took place. He could simultaneously investigate the nebulae and the subatomic particles. And yet even he had limitations, he was not detached from the material realm, he was bound both by time, logic and more importantly existence.


Many eons passed, after he had observed, investigated and deduced everything he could, he grew restless. He dimly remembered when he belonged to material world, he had prayed for an answer, yet the answer still eluded him. Space time undulated through what was his ethereal manifestation in a pattern which if he was still human would have been recognizable as brooding. 


He was in this mood for some time before he became aware of another presence. That other being had been there for quite some time, but until them he had missed him. He sensed that the other was very similar to him. He kept observing the other for some time. The other remained still.


Finally he spoke to the other (he could do this by warping space time continuum), "Who are you", he added hopefully, "Are you God". The other replied, with amusement, "If that's what you wish to call me", "What do you mean", He was confused, ""Where am I", and after a pause, "What am I". The other explained, "Since you prayed for me, you begot me". He asked not convinced, "What if I hadn't prayed for God"."I don't know". "How can the God not know", He was incredulous. The other was patient, " Is it that incredible! I, The God, am the manifestation of your act of believing, I can not fathom what non-belief could have brought forth. Suddenly he understood. He asked plaintively, "Do you have the answer". The other ruefully replied, "No, I don't have, countless time I have appeared, only to dissolve without knowing what lies behind it all". 


And for the second time, he begged in sheer desperation. He begged and begged for an answer.


Slowly darkness enveloped him for the second time.


And for the second time He regained consciousness. It seemed as if He had been dreaming for a long time. Though it didn't make sense, for now not only He transcended physical world, but also boundaries of time and logic. He knew what had happened since the beginning of universe, the big bang, but beyond that the truth was hidden from Him. He started thinking.


After many eons had passed, He came out of his reverie, now He had a way to find the answer. But for that, the universe as it existed didn't fit. He knew what He had to do. Almost instantaneously the space time continuum encompassing the universe folded. Universe ceased to exist. There was nothing but Him. 


Now He had to begin again. He was not sure what He will do next. But that was OK. He was patient, for time had no meaning for Him. He will think of something.


Shamelessly plagiarized from Clarke, Asimov, and Heinlein

The 'M' argument *

Here is a confession. I find the level of political discourse in Indian blogospehre quite underwhelming. The problem is that the interlocutors tend to be tunnel visioned, missing out the big picture in their argument. Consequently the arguments tend to be limited to exercise in logical correct, an examination of X follows Y follows Z. And yet the chain of causation, no matter however long or however convoluted, must end up somewhere. This beginning is the first principle. Now people talk about first principles all the time, but what no one realizes is that first principles by very definition are not established by reasoning. In fact if we strictly adhere to logic, the very notion of first principles seem quite arbitrary, the chain of cause and effect being turtles all the way down. A prime example of such an argument being this post (though someday I intend to rebut it, that day is not today) As it happens though first principles are not arbitrary, anchored as they are in human psyche, his instincts and belief system. To give an example, my first principles, for lack of any better words, are traditionalism and cultural nationalism. Now I didn't  happen to stumble upon these principles by accident, but because identification with tradition and culture is an aspect of human instinct. Same must go for liberals and libertarians. Identifying what motivates the politics is therefore as important as the actual politics. Any investment in such an endeavor will be worth its while for we will be better placed to appreciate why people think the way they do, and why it is futile sometimes to engage in debate.

* Argument from motivation

The PostDiluvian Creed

[This post is a result of  email exchange with Don Virmani]

Don raised an important query, one which has intrigued me for a long time. The query is this, despite the apparent contradiction in their world-view, why is left so enamored of Islam? Now  I don't have any definitive answer to that however to best of my understanding the alliance between left and Islam is similar to Molotov-Ribbentrop pact against a common enemy, the Kaffir.

That still doesn't make sense however, surely left realizes that as flawed as (according to them) capitalism (or in our case, Hinduism ) is, it is much more closer to left's vision than a life of abject terror under Islamic tyranny. Here we leave theory and enter the politics. These are just my speculations of course but they kind of make sense to me.

Conservative stalwart Buckley was dismissive of leftist projects, finding its goal of utopia on earth as absurc. He popularized a term for it immanentizing the eschaton. In my opinion he missed a much more pernicous instinct of left, I like to call it Post Diluvian instinct.

Much like Islam and Christianity, left is an inerrant ideology to its adherents, meaning it admits of no fault or incompleteness. This certitude combined with an excess of self regard makes the leftists highly intolerant towards any difference, especially when coming from (in their opinion) their intellectual inferior.

When this fanatic outlook collides with the reality of a social order based upon a differing ideology, the only conclusion open to leftist is that social order is immoral and corrupt, and only after the social order has been destroyed, a new man can rise free from the corrupting influence of earlier order. It is this new man who will be enlightened enough to recognize the historical inevitability, and thus initiate the social reconstruction as envisaged in the doctrine.

This is similar to what happened in legend of Noah. Left wants to bring paradise, but for that it first needs to bring a deluge.

Where is my change, dude!

Alternatively Titled The Mechanics Of Political Transformations


This is sort of sequel to "paradigm shift" post.

1. What is ownership? Ownership in this case is not like a teenager owning his room, we know how it goes, but is used in a very restricted sense, that is the idea the people take care of what own to maximize their utility.

2. What ownership means for democracy? The reason, Patron-Client model of democracy is so prevalent in the contemporary polities is this model works great for the interest group which are clients, which is why

a. there is competition between groups for place as a client  and b. competition within the grip for slicing the pie favorably. Problem with this is while this is good for specific groups, as a whole it is detrimental to society.

Wherever politics follows this model it can either result in a. tyranny or b. anarchy and disintegration.

On the other hand Ownership model implies that democracy is not as a means to just distribute goodies but to address common issues.

3. How is the ownership model in action ?

In economic there is a concept called tragedy of commons. This is just economicspeak for, "if it belongs to everyone it belongs to no one". In economics most accepted way out of this tragedy is government. In real life however a democratic government itself is a tragedy of commons (because well it belongs to everyone, and no one). Strictly speaking unless there is graft involved governing is not just what it is made out to be. Which is why homo economicus (i.e.rational man) has no way to resolve this dilemma.

Fortunately for humans they are homo sapiens, and due to pressure of nature selection humans have evolved to have means to address this exactly.That means is community. Community at its various level of granularities (from family, to society, to nation, which is an extended community) is responsible for common ownership.

Prevailing social customs are the rules and the protocols which both reinforce the cohesion of community and the means whereby community ensures common ownership. These customs are transferred from generation to generation via tradition and as such are primary component of what we understand by culture.

Which means that in order to promote ownership model, unit of both political authority as well as political mobilization should ideally be community. This could be housing societies or muhallah. Hypothetically it may even be caste, but I am not really fond of it, due to its huge negatives.

4. How to make the shift to Ownership model ? At this point you might be saying, "Well, this is all well and good, but how do we get to the Ownership model you speak of smart ass". Incidentally this is what Amitji asked me. This is, what  can be called dus karod ka prashan.This is, also a very good question. This is, also a question that unfortunately I don't have any answer to at present. Well this is not entirely accurate, I don't have the answer except in broadest, vaguest terms. For that keep watching this space.

Watching the watchmen

Spoilers

Having watched Watchmen some time ago, the review I criticized in an earlier post seems even more misplaced now than it seemed at that time. Anyway I don't like the movie, which means less than nothing considering I didn't like Godfather or 2001: A Space Odyssey for that matter. I have some standard to maintain after all. Now it has something to do with the fact that I haven't read Watchmen the graphic novel by Alan Moore, which is held by many comics aficionados to be a ground breaking work of  its genre.However it is generally understood that any adaptation has to strike a balance between appealing to the following of original work by staying true to it and bringing in audience not introduced with the work. While Zack Snyder is faithfully to the novel he fails to hold the attention of larger audience,  which in my view irrevocably dooms this thinking man's superhero movie.

First of movie's short coming is Snyder slavish adherence to the text while failing to capture of the essence of the novel. Reminiscent of his earlier adaptation of Frank Miller's 300, he copies almost the novel panel by panel. However in doing that he fails to effectively capture the dystopian  theme of  the novel, the story of watchmen being secondary and in effect enforcing this narrative. Instead the movie is slow and feels dragging on forever. Even the visuals disappoint, failing to impart a gritty, noirish feel, done admirably in dark knight for instance.

However for me the main shortcoming is the novel itself. The novel written during the tense period of cold war is itself outdated having US as the clear winner. This is however least of its problems.

The novel for most part is nothing but a parade of American liberal cliches and bogeymen. The novels depicts Nixon as President having abrogated the term limits, and it is implied, subverted the institutions, effectively dictator of US.

Now it is not my case that Nixon was a honorable man, for he was not, but as cynical as it may sound, his greatest crime was not Watergate but hostility to  media, resulting from fear psychosis. Watergate while not exactly something which will commend Nixon to posterity, was hardly a deviation as far as political skulduggery is concerned, similar practices being regularly employed from Johnson administration going as far as back to FDR.

 Similarly Nixon didn't harbor any ambition of abrogating term limits and anointed Caesar, that dishonor ironically belongs to liberal Messiah predating the current Messiah, FDR, ironically it was only due to his breaking the convention of two terms that term limits were introduced.

To add to this, it is implied that JFK's assassination was a government's conspiracy, the right wing elements within the government being the perpeterators. Of course the inconvenient truth is that JFK was felled, as Jackie Kennedy frustratingly remarked, by a silly little communist.

Most infuriating however is the moral ambivalence. US for all its flaws has been a force for good in contrast to  Communist regimes which have perpetrated immeasurable misery and death. It is clear for all its self righteousness, left uses liberty in much the same sense as it uses fascism.

Genius Of Socialism

Most of the parents consider children barbarians and hence it is their life long mission to civilize them. In more vigorous this process of civilization generally involves a considerable amount of physical violence. However in a more enervated society such as ours, use of physical violence for improvement of children is looked down upon, which is why most of the parent take recourse to "Santa Claus and Bogeyman" approach. Children are promised that their good behaviour will be rewarded by Santa Claus, whereas if they do something forbidden, Bogeyman will kidnap them and do unspeakable things to them. Usually up to a certain age this approach is pretty effective.

However as I have observed before civilization, or in other words, ensuring that our inner beast remains shackled is a life long concern. Traditionally this is accomplished by religion, with assumption of afterlife, either as playing harp in heaven versus burning in lake of sulphur or freedom from cycle of birth and death versus reincarnating as a cockroach. This behaviour is ridiculed by the atheists who mostly are content with circular arguments.

This brings us to the final point which is socialism as political project. Now socialism as a political project is a belief by the enlightened class that it can guide society to utopia, provided society follows its dictates. To ensure this happens it needs its own Santa Claus and Bogeyman. Now genius of socialism resides in the fact that it is able to provide for both in a single persona of "rich". On the one "rich" is a despicable scum against which the proletariat must actively resist lest it stealthily sucks the blood out of proletariat, on the other hand proletariat is assured of  rewards by extorting wealth from "rich".

Of course this can continue for ever, but as long as it does, it is good going, after all it is the biggest con of them all .

Discuss

Contrary to our belief, we niramishvaadis are relatively more immoral or perhaps even more cruel than samishvaadis (This topic inspired by first half of this post by Frogji)

Hindus in the iron mask.

Venerable fossil Khushwant Singh comments on connection between 1984 anti Sikh pogroms and 2002 post Godhra riots. Now I am not sure whether a logical connection can be drawn between the two riots.
What I do find interesting is this throwaway dissimulation, "After the burning of a bogey of the train at Godhra, we are still not certain who set the compartment on fire or the identity of the victims", now former part is familiar to us.

To this day our secular overlords still pretend that the identity of perpetrators is somewhat of a mystery, I can only assume that they think the Muslim mob was present there just to enjoy the stench of burning flesh.

However the latter part is a novelty, now we are not even sure about the victims! And all along I had the impression that the victims were mostly VHP activists who had greatly offended Muslims of Godhra by traveling to Ayudhya to demand construction of Ram Mandir which in the lexicon of secular Joan of Arc Teesta Seetalvad is a justifiable  excuse for roasting them in gasoline fire.

Lest people dismiss the curious apologia as a rambling of senile mind, they should realize the agenda which subconsciously drives the dissimulation, it is to keep reinforcing the narrative of Muslims being the designated victims and Hindus always suspect as aggressors with only secular liberal establishment shielding former from the wrath of the latter. Secular liberal establishment zealously guards this narrative and will not, indeed it can not, allow any chink however minor to appear in this. 

Of course the end result, and intended one at that, of this endless propaganda is the Hindus are hidden with an abstract mask labeled as aggressor, and it is under this shaming of anonymous notoriety denied any claim to insult to cultural dignity and as the in case of Godhra even the possibility of being a victim. This is dehumanizing Hindus.

Orwell described Totalitarianism as a boot endlessly stamping on a human face, secularism as a doctrine is just endless beating of Hindus as a punching bag.

Aphorism: Language

In any society language holds the key to social consciousness. Those who control the language, control  the levers of society. The control of language is the most potent force one can wield. Accepting the dictum that power corrodes human mind, authority over language awakes the inner tyrant of even the most well intentioned, turning them into despots bent on subjugating the society, even without them aware of the metamorphosis or being antagonistic to such despotism.

Nietzsche and Nihilism

All right,  I was thinking of writing another illuminating post to lift the ignorant toiling masses,  but that can wait for a brief comment on this post which commits the error of conflating Nietzsche with nihilism. This is a common error, yet one which arises not due to confusion regarding Nietzsche's works but due to deliberate mis-characterization by a generation of philosophers of diverse schools antagonistic to his idea.

The fundamental problem is that Nietzsche was not a Nihilist, rather he warned against the collapse of society in an orgy of Nihilism.

Nietzsche is popularly known for his critique of Christianity, however while he wrote devastating polemics against Christianity, most notably The Antichrist, his main preoccupations were attacking prevailing weltanschauung  in post Enlightenment Europe which can be broadly characterized as secular and rational, and

His argument essentially was that any philosophical system having discarded belief in existence of a God (or to be more specific Christian God), can not continue to assume a moral framework, which is founded upon the premise of existence of such God. This argument is best captured in his famous proclamation, "God is dead" .

His concern, as he wrote in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, went further than the logical flaw in secular philosophy of Kant or Hegel . He worried, correctly in my view, that, having removed  "veil of God", civilized man may end up annihilating himself out of despair of the futility of existence*. Thus his admonitions about gazing into abyss and fighting the monsters .

He realized that post-Christianity Europe robbed of its purpose in form of Christian Eschatology , must be supplied with a new purpose, a new teleology so as to speak. Nietzsche accomplished this by appropriating Schopenhauer 's "will to live" (which was influenced by Vedanta and Buddhism , as was the norm for German Romanticists looking for world-view alternative to Christianity). In this he employed "theory of natural selection" , which since its introduction had revolutionized the philosophical landscape and held promise as alternative to traditional religion. Nietzsche fused the two to propose will to power. Explored in The Gay Science , Beyond Good and Evil , and Ecce Homo, his philosophy found full expression in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. There he introduced the concept of Ubermensch, which was the final goal of civilized man.

At the time he wrote the book, it didn't get many followers but by the turn of 20th century this idea gained wide currency owing to translations and reprints. This idea distorted through antisemitic literature appealed to Adolf Hitler combined this with pseudo scientific race theory to conceive of Aryan race which was to rule the world. Rest is a rather unfortunate history. One effect of this was Nietzsche became persona non Grata as far as philosophy was concerned.

Now, with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to dismiss his concept of "becoming" . However his critique of secular and rational world view remains as relevant. This incidentally was my purpose for baiting earlier. Too bad it ended in non sequitur .

* This was not something unique to Nietzsche. This concern for nihilism is reflected in works of Fyodor Dostoevsky such as The Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment