Exile from paradise

When God exiled Adam & Eve, he was not punishing them.

The act of eviction was in fact an act by God to save himself.
For God arose out of nothingness, this void, the end of meaning, beyond causality, preceding the reason is what terrifies him, who is mightiest most.It terrifies because the admittance of nothing will annihilate God as surely as anti-matter does to matter.

To deny this vacuum, to falsify the absolute truth, he sought to cast out the primal truth (of the cipher) as serpent. Even this act, the exile before exile couldn't obliterate the knowledge of abyss from God's memory.

Bitter at failure, the omnipotent sought to bestow a reason, by act of creation, thereby banishing this knowledge from his realm and validating essence of his own existence. Thus Adam & Eve were born, the innocent one.

But one shortcoming remained, these children of his had curiosity. It was thus that God sought to protect the tender and fragile creations of his from knowledge which even he fears most.

But the serpent exacted revenge on almighty, he tempted Eve using her curiosity, thus introducing the first born to futility of existence.

God had failed ! But it was not a matter of failure, the humans had the power now to slay their father. It was thus fear for his own existence and not outrage over violation of arbitrary morality, which compelled the God to banish the couple.

Humans rue the event to this day, but God is remorseful for this too. to an extent that humans can not even fathom. For what could be more sorrowful to "God" than the "Truth".

A view of world in inverted position

I love my city, absolutely. What I like most about my city are the buses. You see, the buses are painted with green color, which one has to admit, unless one is a philistine, is a most fetching color.

However I am depressed nowadays, I strongly believe that green buses are a cultural high point of my city. It turns out that some people think otherwise, they happen to believe, that it is red which is the essence of aesthetic taste. Worse they happen to be in majority and now they are going to repaint the buses, in Red!

I do not feel right about this. Since I am a minority, and since I can not have my way, this must be a violation of my "rights". Infact come to think of it, I feel grossly violated.

It is incumbent upon society to redress this grievance, and this can only be done by repainting the buses to green, if “right” of minorities are only granted by “screwing” majority of their “rights”, I think it is only proper, “justice” demands this.

Oh Nitin, what have thou done ! I no longer believe in essential goodness of mankind, or that there is one gorgeous female, who has absolutely no taste and is filthy stinking rich, is waiting for me.

PS. I blame I.S.I

Road to nowhere

(Background:
This post has two motives. First to prepare a background for next part of this post.
Second I have reasons to believe that this bastard person of unknown parentage was intending to write a post on this subject. Since he made me eat crow, this is my humble attempt to exact revenge*.
Also for what is worth, here are the posts on related subjects [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9])

One of the dominant fashions in intellectual circles (where word intellectual is used very loosely) is to ascribe “self-interest” as ideal and self-sufficient condition to hold the society, the polity and everything in between. In short, GUT of social theories. This is an interesting premise; this is also a flawed one.

At the beginning, let me state that self-interest is one of most basic animal (thereby human) instincts, even the dominating one during major periods of evolutionary history.

This is where proponents of “self-interest” err. It is touted as logical because (I suppose) it is more in accordance with our instincts, however the controlling condition of self-interest is that a person while pursuing course of self-interest will not harm some one else or obstruct his pursuit of (his) self interest.

Where I differ is to refuse to embellish that instinct. For if truth be told, that instinct should be rightly called selfishness that is, tendency to act for self advantage without regards to position of others, indeed most of the times acting to determinant of others.
(From point of view of social studies) selfishness is hardwired with survival of individual*. Under the influence of this instinct, organism will try to adapt a course of action, which to his knowledge will maximize his chances of survival.

The problem with the self-interest then is

Its espousal of something (selfish behaviour) as it is ostensibly based on instinct (which is valid enough).
Describing a controlling condition (not interfering with other’s rights), which at best is a much weaker instinct.

There is ground to contest the assertion. For example, 2 can be contested with the assertion that concept of self interest is not dependant on good will of one towards another; instead the controlling condition can be achieved through effective implementation of law and order. However strictly from self-interest this is self-defeating, for every time a law is sought to be enforced, the biggest incentive for subversion of law is to the enforcer himself (as posed neatly in the old quandary).
From this point of view, a typical traffic policeman in India is the epitome of virtuosity!

Another ground (excuse for going Meta) may be the example of America (as was upheld by Ayn Rand) as example of practical application of self-interest; this however again is modern revisionism. The reason behind America is “American”. Consider everywhere; it is “American dream” or “American way” or “American life”. It is a country powered by another extinct, an innocent fascination, even enthrallment at human capability. America is a curious amalgam of Greek vitality with protestant ethics.

There is still a deeper issue; life operates at multiple and more often than not, conflicting levels. The way to resolve dilemma posed by polity or society (which is a subset of human civilization) is to resolve the conflict. Blind faith in reason, while appealing to pedants and sophists can at best lead to deadlock of society, at worst even unraveling. This is no idle boast.

* The story behind crow is that the he challenged me to post the picture, in response to this post. I could not and rest is, as they say, a story.

One incredibly thin line

Recently Supreme Court disqualified election of P.C. Thomas for appealing on ground of religion.

Eminent libertarian (henceforth to be called E.L.) questioned the decision, arguing voters have freedom to cast their voters on any criteria, including religion.Rohit disagreed.

Now I admit, I find voting on religious lines an entirely avoidable exercise and importantly I find such tactics damaging to society.
However even though I am horrified by the prospect, I can not but agree with E.L.,

Three reasons:
First, ultimately the responsibility of merit of legislature in a democracy lies on the choices of electorate, so is the responsibility of the consequences of that choice. It is upto public to realize, the folly of such propoganda, and not the duty of state to protect it from its own mistakes.

Second, it is arbitrary to hold religion as a sole ground of dismissal. Why, one may ask, is caste not a ground for dismissal considering the havoc casteism has wreaked upon India in present and in past. Or for that matter even gender.

Third, how does one draw the line? It is not for sake of rhetoric, it is simply impossible to decide what is permissible and what is not, in case of something as fuzzy as appealing on grounds of religion. I am hardly a freedom fanatic but considering the circumstances I doubt it is advisable to micro manage the electoral choices.

PS. Rohit has commented that appealing on grounds of religion is equivalent to inciting violence. Unless you are specifically asking for Jihad, I am not sure I understand the reasoning.

PPS. One may argue, on the basis of principles above even criminals should be allowed to contest elections. I have no objection to this on the “above” grounds.
As some one remarked, democracy is the means to ensure that public gets what it wants and it gets it good and hard. I concur with this.
However my grounds to objection over criminals participation in elections are different, by barring them we are punishing the criminals, depriving them from exercising one of the rights of citizen.
This is as it should be; there should be a price for citizenship. We all know how people treat free things

Elephants & psychology

(This post is taken from email Conversation with Atanu, apologies for not asking the permission, but I am in hurry and this stuff seems good to me)

Now I think expression "Elephant in the room" is really absurd.
I mean, it is little difficult, even a bit of skill if I may say so to "not" see an Elephant in the room.
I think this is a most muddled phrase ever invented. Why can't people see the damned thing, considering it is a bit of nuisance to have Elephants in your drawing room (or lobby or bedroom *).
Problem is people see Elephants all right, but they deny its existence, all five tonnes of it.
It is a trouble not with the perception, but at a deeper psychological level.
You see the intellect is in right place but psyche is atrophied and stultified.
The resolution to problem of seen but not heard pachyderms then is not to shout about Elephants, but reach the subconscious. Hence the popularity of mob psychology.

* On the other hand it is really easy to put the Elephant in refrigerator.

An act of mercy

(Reason:
1. This is friday night. I am lonely, I am depressed, I am annoyed. It is 3:00 AM for God's sake.
2. One unkind blogger made me eat crowburger yesterday. I have to wreck retribution.
3. I realize that I have freedom of speech, but no responsibility. It is a free lunch

Warning:

Any accidental visitor and Frog, this is not humour,or satire, this is malice, petty and putrid. It is distasteful and offending, which is bad, and lame which is worse. Also this post has unhygienic levels of bad grammar and misspellings.
So if you have any doubts, please do not proceed
)

Since I started reading blogs from last year, there is one aspect which has been constant. It is periodic outbreak of hostility between two bloggers. Content free, and with as much entertainment value as a fight between two retards, which means while this event was amusing initially, now it has begun to grate upon cosmic harmony.

This issue was baffling, it also promised of triteness matched only by 'K' serials. In short, it was something which simply couldn't be refused, and it was thus that this amateur detective ventured forth.

As first approximation, I guessed that this malice was due to usual suspect i.e. frustration arising from lack of fornication. This is a serious issue, endemic in India. In fact I expect UN to declare emergency and dispatch Jenna Jameson.

But this didn't fit,being blogger with means they could have arranged instruments necessary for the gratification (man, woman, canine or dead, it is a free world after all). That they didn't meant I was looking at the wrong place.

On further reasoning, I revised my opinion. May be they were sadomasochists, and they actually loved each other. Then the logical conclusion for them would have been to cohabitate and live happily ever after (which in this would have meant painfully). Their lives and times could have been adapted into a motion picture, which would have been super hit because it would have appealed to audience of both Brokeback mountain and The Passion of the Christ.

Unfortunately I was deceived yet again. They, to my (and all that gave rise to Karan Johan), do not love each other.

Truth is much more complicated, and heart wrenching. Both of them are capable, articulate and intelligent.

One is from a prestigious institute (while I am not, because of merit, which is most unjust, because merit is meaningless as one fine journalist told this humble blogger), the second is great because he says so (and whoever doesn't concur is a Brahman son of bitch who should be given enema).

Problem is their ego is so bloated, so gigantic (or so Aym-Gramdish) that it far exceeds their capabilities. Result of this monstrous ego is that these two people have a strong urge to dominate, to be feted, to be recognized as heroes, problem is this desire is not matched by their capability. Unable to become hero, they do what all failed heroes do, they try to become martyr. But here too their attempt at glory is thwarted, for there is no one to oblige.

Imagine, what horror, what desolation for a person who is bent on self-mortification, but there is no one to stone him. People simply do not crucify nowadays! Instead they write posts making fun of them. This makes them mad, and angry. Because they are mad they hurt each other and bore me. This is getting majorly fucked up, I am pissed off, world is plunging into abyss....

Anyway to relieve them of their suffering, I propose a mob of bloggers meet and lynch both of them, or if lynching is devoid of rapture, crucify. In fact there is another blogger who will be more than willing to drown them in his puke or crush under his poop. But the thing is, this shit has gone for too long, it is intolerable to witness their acts of self pleasure.I can not stand this for another year. So please, noble dwellers of blogdom, fulfill their innermost desires, make this world a better place.

I rush in....

... where angels fear to tread. Even if that is the case, let me satisfy my urge.

Is Shivam desperate after hits, I do not posses the gift of clairvoyance, so let me rescue myself from the question*. What I know however that he has an agenda, nothing wrong with it. Problem is the agenda is rotten to the core. Good news however is that it is so rotten it has an unbearable stench so it is easy to detect and avoid, unless you happen to be a dung eater.

Motivations aside**, was it correct to publish the photos (which angered a lot of people). "But it was his right”! Sure, as is my right to claim that moon is made up of blue cheese***, but when we say correct in the context we mean was it decent thing to do, and so since no one from government is giving mid night knocks, please let us leave the rights out of discussion.

I think strictly from professional point of view, there was nothing wrong about it. Visuals, distasteful or otherwise are integral point of journalism, and to me it is dubious whether it is possible to effectively report such incidents without the medium. Also the argument that visual should not be shown "out of respect" for dead is fallacious, the import of reportage should be taken in context. Indeed when it has happened that media desisted from broadcasting visuals, it was less to do with dead, than out of respect for living.

But the point that I made above is moot, for the reason even if there was something which crossed our ordinary norm of propriety, it would still be justifiable.

It is incorrect to say that a picture is worth thousand words. Words, even language as we understand it, are deception at psychological level. This deception is not intentional, it is a subtle, human instinct. These symbols are sedatives of human mind, distractions from the suffering.

Arnab is a prolific writer, so is Rohit, but they can not even begin to describe the true emotions. "Now, now" I hear, "This is unfair, if you read carefully what the gentlemen wrote, you can not help but feel anger, outrage at what happened".

"But this is where you are wrong"! I interrupt, and this is where both of them have failed, indeed they were bound to fail. The reason the limitation of language needed nothing less than Stephen King.

This is the reason you were wrong if you felt anger. Outrage, disgust anything on secondary level of psyche is wrong. The only emotion which would be appropriate, feeling which would even begin to describe the truth is fear. Fear for self, your family, your friends, anyone you love. This could be their fate too. Brutally raped, killed like wild animal by animals, animals who robbed them of their dignity in their life and their humanity in their death.
Hopes, expectations, love, years of tender care, all extinguished on a single afternoon, which otherwise for what happened was no more distinguished than any other afternoon.


Yes, fear in its most naked form, stripped of any pretensions of social falsehood. The fear of primitive man, existing in innermost recesses of mind, under the locks of religion, theology, art, even reason, finally appearing before the eyes of a civilized man. Behold the spectacle of abyss, the chasm, nothingness of existence, which when man first became familiar with, traumatized him for eternity, and to forget whose presence he created the fiction of Gods and logic.
This is also a meeting, accidental but by no means pleasant, of man's oldest friend, the beast within.

This is the deadlights of civilization. You see, Pennywise lives.



And closer than you thought.


Afterthought: What about instruction against abyss, it was against staring not looking.

* To paraphrase Scott Adams, the most attractive aspect of political blogging is to watch two grown ups engaged in a juvenile fight over half-baked and asinine opinions. Ignoramus in earnest battle with insufferable.


** There was a bunch who argued against employing ad hominem attacks. It is fortunate; that consistency is not one of the virtues of humanity, for life would be oppressed with the weight of mere logic.It is inconsistency which elevate existence from daily grind of tedium, that and malice.

*** There is a bumper sticker here, how about "First amendment: It is our God given right to be moron and we intend to use it”