About Fear of Death

What is the origin of the rather irrational fear of death, we humans have? We are quite willing to forgo anything, or happy to inconvenience ourselves to a great degree, just to extend our life span. Which is easily noticeable, since all other forms of life show such struggles only when the end is inevitable.
Think of an activity, say, a game. All those who take part in it can be divided broadly into two. Those who are doing very well and belonging to the winning side, and those who are unable to register a win. For the former, the final whistle is of no consequence. Rather, they shall be eagerly looking forward to it. And for the latter, at every moment, the final whistle shall be an imminent threat.
I think the fear of death too, needs to be seen in this light. Agree, each and every form of life show some resistance, when  one's life is in danger. But for humans, fear of death is much more than that, it effectively is the primary determinant for everything in life. An all pervasive, acute form of fear, which, I am sure, needs more explanation.
Here, the thoughts I expressed in my book, 'The Unsure Male', is a perfect fit. Humans, especially the males, seem to be on the losing side, as far as the most significant activity of life, namely, the one of perpetuating it, is concerned. Who shall therefore find in the final whistle, a big threat. Also, studies in this regard exist, which talks of gender differences in the manifestation of this dread. Women seem to be less frightened about death, though they show a higher degree of anxiety over private or personal losses that can happen as a result.
Woman acts as a member of a winning side, and man, as one of the losers.

Intolerance, my view

However tolerant I am, that will be gone, the moment I am no more. And so, for all. But, if the society is tolerant, however intolerant I am, tolerance shall reappear, the moment I am gone.
A good question therefore is, how to make the society tolerant.
A society is constituted by abstract citizens, whose fundamental aim is to maximize one's own benefit. (Our system of bringing up the next generation essentially is nothing else but efforts to make us forget this aim!)
People can be divided into two, those who have their eyes set on the present, and those who look far ahead. The former always look for immediate gain, and the latter shall have a wider view.
For both of these, one will choose to be tolerant or not, based on the comparative benefit that can accrue. See, it is possible for an intolerant one to maximize one's benefits, only in a tolerant society. Hence, if we find intolerant people everywhere, it is an indication the the society is a tolerant one.
The West and the East are good examples. Societies of the west are open to change, but an average westerner is not. But look to the east. Societies full of individuals that revel at the traditional, and a society that has accepted the most.
I therefore feel, we need not find fault with our society on account of the levels of tolerance shown by its members. We in fact should be letting such individual expressions flourish, knowing well that the society will gladly and wholeheartedly accept a change, as and when it happens.

The Irrational in Us, Once Again

Our society constantly faces many explosive issues. A current one relates to the ecological disaster, the coastal region of Alappat is waiting for. Where amelioration is feasible by erecting suitable structures, or by reappropriating the composition of soil, or other scientific measures. But, rather than focusing on this, our society is busy with loud accusations, mainly about how such an issue came to be. And forgetting totally, the need of the hour as far as the damages that have already taken place.
Say, the finding regarding the ill effects of mining is fully right. Assume we stop mining notwithstanding the inconvenience, it could lead to. Isn't this too high a price, that too with no real gain, except perhaps the difficulties associated with the discontinuation of mining.
Hence, ask the right questions. Can the land be restructured, and if so, how?

Another recipe for peace

Why is human society not peaceful? I think this question has been attracting a lot of attention ever since the very beginning of mankind. And over the years, many reasons has been proposed. Class rivalries, religious strife, and cultural divides, are only some of those, each bringing out certain differences, like that of standard of living, beliefs, or outlook and behavioral traits. Which gave rise to an elaborate mechanism for keeping the human society in check. The vast structure of religions, sects, and countries belong to this. Do we really need it? Is there such an unease?
I tried to go a little deeper, and found that whatever be the origin of this unease, it gets compounded by many reasons.
All those probing into this naturally shall then identify this compounded version as the one needing attention. Since it will be having many different, prominent features depending on the particular force that acted on it, differing theories can arise, from those analyzing the uneasy society. And a host of variables shall be found to act here, like political, cultural, or religious differences. Each of those variables calling for the attention of a dedicated reformer, we have come to accept human society as an imbroglio.
But all of them miss one point. The unease has to originate somewhere, perhaps in something not so complex. The search for this is taking me to matter itself, in which I now see new possibilities. (In fact, notwithstanding our best efforts, human society remains to be a turbulent one, since we are yet to identify the primary cause)
Life, and sub-atomic particles
It seems the behavioral quirks of sub-atomic particles are quite similar to the peculiarities we see in the way life manifests. A distinct feature of life, presence of the element of free will, is almost the same as the conundrum associated with the behavior of sub-atomic particles, which we currently explain by terms like superposition, or uncertainty.
Hence one may say, the rather unpredictable nature or the element of chance present in matter when it is at the sub-atomic level, compares well with that associated with life as a whole. Which could portend a totally new approach to life. Like, quelling unease should necessarily involve redefining ease.

What can one learn from income tax?

Should income be taxed? Even when we see tax as the only way of income for the government, I find no justification at all, for income tax. Especially since a government can choose between many kinds of taxes. It looks economically illogical that we tax the productive output of a society. Taxing anything means you will get less of it. Which means, by taxing the income, each one earns from one's efforts, we are making ourselves 'progress' towards a less productive society. At least, the productivity will be much less then what it would have been, had income not been taxed. Why have we been ignoring this, since long?
Also, why did't we start to tax expenditure? The rich, who spends more, would have been taxed also, more.
Hence income tax is one more instance, which proves that our natural propensity is to the irrational.

Mismanaged?

How we could have handled the issue of women’s entry to temple, better.

It is well known, any changes to the status quo shall invite the opposition, at least from the few who would have been feeling fortunate to be part of the permitted ones. Since this can make them feel at a loss by not being able to be privileged, as earlier. And it becomes an ego issue.

At any organization, those responsible to implement and manage such changes need to follow some pattern. Introduce certain requirements that give an air of authenticity, or selection, to those permitted anew. For example, we could start with permitting the entry of women of such age groups who have undergone certain special rituals. Like visiting a few notified temples. The more complex we make such rituals, more bliss, the disciples shall be feeling.

In such a scenario, the matter would not have gone to the judiciary at all.

Book Review: 'Intelligent Universe'

'Intelligent Universe', by Ilyan Kei Lavanway. This book has a proposal . The entire universe is alive and intelligent. It is designed and patterned after the human brain... every star is connected to at least one other star at any given moment by a wormhole whose opening is generated by the dynamic forces working within the star. As an important object in the skies, there is black hole. Inside a black hole, everything outside is observable. Outside a black hole, nothing inside is observable. Could the throne of God be at the center of a super massive black hole, or something similar?
I liked the new line of thought, the author proposes, and progress he makes in connecting logically, the current scientific theories with it. But I feel, enough justice is not being done by this book, to such a good idea. The author takes refuge in rather obscure reasoning, which in any case is a staple part of all forms of literature dealing with any god. This apart, the book offers me some more logical challenge.

Book Review: The Psychology of Revolutions

I believe while our planet is revolving, some revolution also is in the making. (In fact the essence of every revolution can be thought of as our dormant desire to engage with the irrational. Think of the middle ages, where it would have been irrational to be a progressive one, and few became pioneers of great repute by being so. And think of the current times when there is a visible urge to embrace the past, which also is exactly for the same reason)

I happened to come across a book, “The Psychology of Revolutions” by Gustav le Bon, a treatise about the many facets of a revolution.

It begins with a discussion about the general characteristics of revolutions. Which are:

i) a sudden transformation of ideas, beliefs, or doctrines

ii) a large crowd swayed by sentiments but waiting for a leader; even though the spark may be of rational origin

iii) the slower and more unremarkable, its events and occurrences, the more long lasting, the effects

The book then goes on to examine the role, people play. A realization of history and the appreciation of stability of the old, and a desire to embrace the future, needs to meet at a point, which should be letting the savage in every one, free to bloom. People behave differently, the book notes, when in individual capacity, and as part of a crowd. In this connection an interesting experiment is done by Prof Glosson, showing the power of suggestion and leadership. “I prepared a bottle filled with distilled water carefully wrapped in cotton and packed in a box. After several other experiments I stated that I wished to measure the rapidity with which an odour would diffuse itself through the air, and asked those present to raise their hands the moment they perceived the odour… . I took out the bottle and poured the water on the cotton, turning my head away during the operation, then took up a stop-watch and awaited the result… . I explained that I was absolutely sure that no one present had ever smelt the odour of the chemical composition I had spilled… . At the end of fifteen seconds the majority of those in front had held up their hands, and in forty seconds the odour had reached the back of the hall by fairly regular waves. About three-quarters of those present declared that they perceived the odour. A larger number would doubtless have succumbed to suggestion, if at the end of a minute I had not been forced to stop the experiment, some of those in the front rows being unpleasantly affected by the odour, and wishing to leave the hall.”

What follows is surprising, the book says. The earliest of revolutions took up the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity. But over time, both equality and fraternity, the natural elements of living beings, are being discarded. We however hold on to equality, a contradiction, both in biology and in economics.

I agree with the author, But the premise is to find these as a peculiarity of humans, being a species with abstract needs. And I disagree here. The answer to the questions raised in this book is well covered by my reasoning about human nature, as presented in my book, The Unsure Male.

Beware

An extract from my book, "Today, among the different cultures or societies of the world, the repressive views, especially those pertaining to male-female equality and suppression of female sexuality, do face, wide, effective opposition only because the moderates are in a decent, reckon-able number. Won’t in future, with the differential rate of population growth when moderates become a minority, the regressive majority will find themselves empowered enough to take whatever steps necessary to cement the existing gender inequalities, if not furthering them? Or extermination of billions of people on Earth, incredible suffering, and many devastating upheavals result from their actions, which always will be of the extreme? Can’t this be considered as the most serious problem facing the mankind?"
Events unfolding today in different parts of the world, in connection with BREXIT, about Sabarimala, the threat to science in the US, etc., amply support this.