In Search of a Demon

 Think of the human, and, instantly, one thing shall be coming to mind. Why is that humans are not having a social organization that is greatly different from that of all the other forms of life? This, when in all the other aspects of life and living, they follow a distinct, unique pattern. In fact, surprises do not end here.

Not only that they have adopted a social organization that is almost the same as that of other forms of life, but also take immense pride in it. Whereas, in everything else, not only that humans revel in celebrating their uniqueness, but also find it demeaning to be called animal-like. Moreover, they subject whatever particularities they follow or entertain, to constant scrutiny, and take great pains to institute additions and alterations to keep with the times, at all times. Thus, humans have come to acquire living styles quite unlike that of all the other forms of life, though they live the same life. (Here there is another surprise that merits attention. Humans know, nonliving objects and all living objects other than human, follow always the shortest or easiest path. Why, when it comes living their life, humans do not choose such a path?)
How could this have happened? Especially in the natural course of history. It seems impossible, if an outlook leading to such a dichotomy would not have become deeply engraved in human psyche, that too, before the population was large enough to form the earliest of societies. Also, well before humans started realizing their full potential, particularly of deriving pleasure from intellectual transactions. (If it wasn't so, this would have been a topic widely discussed and deliberated, and an answer would have already been found)
I feel, there is something like Maxwell’s demon as an omnipresent part of the universe. And that is the one that is making things continue its path, of rest, motion, or whatever, unless stopped from doing so. For, if not for it, we would not have had the physical quantities, like temperature, act or react the way it does. Which would have rendered it difficult, if not impossible, to derive benefits from all those, and make this planet our home. I think it won’t be incorrect to say, matter behaves the way it behaves, thanks to this demon.
And, an entity closely related to that demon is residing in each one of us. For, if not for it, we would not have had the same thing, event, or occurrence make each one act or react uniquely. It is also a fact that such acts are many a time in confrontation with others’, the planet’s, and consequentially one’s own, well-being. Rather than noticing this as a 'demonic effect', we in fact celebrate these as the defining character of the human, as something that cannot be seen in any other form of life. Though it makes even the basic activity of staying alive, a complex, many layered job, and that too, a full time one for the human race, vastly different from all the others.
Moreover, the activities of living one’s life expose the future of that life itself, to dangers. Perhaps because of all this, nothing happens with human, where there is no controversy. I think it won’t be incorrect to say, spirit behaves the way it behaves, thanks to this particular entity.
A good example of the demon and its work is the wayward behavior of human spirit, which can very well be noticed in our lifestyle. This is one area, where nothing else can provide even a semblance of a reason to the vagaries, of fears, priorities, desires and inhibitions, the human society always is full of.
x

 

Right/Wrong: How Technology Transforms Our Ethics

Juan Enriquez. 

Apt observation for the times.

New technologies like the machine gun completely changed the nature of warfare in World War I. It drove people into trenches. You were in the British trench, or you were in the German trench. Anything in between was no man's land. You entered no man's land. You were shot. You were killed. You tried to leave the trench in the other direction. Then your own side would shoot you because you were a deserter. 

It seems social media has usurped this role. We're shooting at each other. We're shooting at those we think are wrong with posts, with tweets, with photographs, with accusations, with comments. And at the same time, we are churning out stuff, in which we can hide. What it's done is it's created these two trenches where you have to be either in this trench or that trench. And there's no middle ground, where people can meet each other, to have exchanges of the pleasant kind. 

Book review: Make No Apologies: Early Feminist Writings

Make No Apologies: Early Feminist Writings

Edited by Amanda L. Webster

I agree, 'much of what was written by feminists one hundred years or more in the past still resonates today', and the patriarchy is alive and well. The book proposes a few reasons for it, saying, 'it was the positions of privilege that many of these feminists enjoyed that allowed their voices to be heard while those of their so-called inferiors have been largely silenced'. And it seems, 'at least some of these writings belong to “foot soldiers of patriarchy”'.

The very first essay, Declaration of Sentiments by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, lists the 'repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman', turning her into 'an irresponsible being'. Now she can commit many crimes with impunity, 'provided they be done in the presence of her husband'. Another essay, The Industrial Position of Women by Emily Blackwell, M.D., argues for 'women to be allowed equal access to work', which is just as valid today as it was one hundred and thirty-plus years ago. Interestingly, 'In the savage state, women built the wigwam, raised the corn, prepared the clothes, carried on in its rudest and most elementary form all the work which is today the object of modern industry' and mostly done by males. Thus, when the simple forms of labor developed into architecture and agriculture and manufacture, it is held that women do not fit easily to these old occupations. 

In 'Uncivil Liberty: An Essay to Show the Injustice and Impolicy of Ruling Woman Against Her Consent', Ezra Hervey Heywood traces the origins of the concept of social and legal inferiority of women. The legal subjection of woman is thought to be justified by an assumed natural dependence on man. Here, 'the old claim of tyranny, that “the king can do no wrong,” takes a new turn, the essay posits. Still another essay discusses 'the whole power of voluntary maternity' and free sexual selection by women. 'It should be for them to choose whether they will have children or not: and if so, how many, at what intervals, and with whom.'

Voltairine de Cleyre likens marriage to slavery rather than to prostitution. Charlotte Perkins Gilman, in 'The Yellow Wall Paper' exhorts all fathers to enjoy equal rights both on the responsibilities and the joys of parenthood. Floyd Dell, in her essay 'Femism for Men', suggests that, though Feminism is going to make it possible for the first time for men to be free, they object to it, since they yearn for the feel of power more than they want the sense of freedom. Ethel Puffer Howes describes, how women could be both mothers and career women at the same time by removing the artificial sex restriction invoked to explain the inhibitions of achievement. And, Freedom or Death by Emmeline Pankhurst underscores the fact that men have done splendid things, can speak of great achievements in engineering; but they have failed, they have miserably failed, when it has come to dealing with the lives of human beings. And the race must be saved, and it can only be saved through the emancipation of women.

The ideas expressed here are all the more valid now, when society is struggling to invent reasons to re-impose the sexual restrictions of the earlier days.

Governance by Default, till Democratically Removed

Computer is a success. Every moment, it is making our society a better place to live. How? What can we learn from it?

One can cite many reasons. Computers follow completely, a programmed path, and, it does not get swayed, for example, by passion, are only a few. I think, the single most important reason is  nothing else but the fact that everywhere, there is a 'default'. Which, even when is of no good, ensures that things do not go from bad to worse.  Such steps or instructions keep the issue under its care in a state that is never irredeemable, whatever be the calamity brought by external or internal causes.

By these standards, human is not at all a success. We always find something undesirable in every human society and its constituents. As long as we succeed in keeping such elements away from the ideals that happens to be in vogue currently, we continue to pat ourselves on the back, overlooking all the ills. Otherwise, we change our ideals such that there is no confrontation between those very elements and the current ideals, while blaming the elements themselves for all the ills. However, as one can imagine in such a scenario, things are always on a journey from bad to worse. We just refuse to acknowledge it, and ignore the ever-present threat of those very elements reappearing. Rather, we make such threats or failures a distinct element of the human, all the while feeling proud of the fact that those things are not there in other forms of life. Instinct rules the animal kingdom, and hence it remains calm. Reason rules the human, and they may not be calm, since each one will have a reason of his own. 

In fact for all these years, the journey of the human race has been a silent acknowledgment of this. Think of the age of exploration, the age of discovery, the period thereafter, or the present time, what else but success we have been striving for?

We are yet to realize it. When one goes behind the secrets of plant life, or survey the animal world, or something else, rather than the outcome, it is the fruitful culmination of the efforts that makes one contented the most. The fact that the efforts led to a success is far more significant than what the success did or is capable of doing. An intelligent life, we are, but why miss such an obvious inference as this?

In the  light of the above, let us examine an important facet of human society, namely, governance, and see where we stand. After experimenting with monarchy, as well as checking into a few others like communism, almost all human societies have taken to democracy for good.

Here, essentially the people have to do three things. One, to choose the ones who will govern. Two, to put up with the choice, in a prescribed manner, and that too giving all possible allocation to vagaries of human behavior, for a given period. And three, to assess the governance and to choose again, whether to continue with the same, or to go for fresh ones.

Something does not make sense. People are required to do a lot of work to get themselves governed. Much of their effort is spent in receiving instructions and directions for living ones life. And they hardly get time to live that life, (and are quite happy about it!).

I therefore think, we need to restructure our governance. An easy path is, just as we have seen above in  the case of computer programs, by introducing a default government. Where, the only thing the citizens will have to do is to monitor the performance of the default. Instances of lack of success should be calling for a change, when the relevant part of the government is corrected or replaced in a prescribed manner.  Needless to say, in such a scenario, the government shall be meeting all expectations of all the people.

In short:

1) The country chooses a default government. A good way is to conduct an open competitive examination.

2) Citizens keep recording their dissatisfaction, if and when it happens.

3) Whenever the recorded value crosses a threshold, the government, or the part that can be identified as the culprit, is told to go home.

In One Sentence:

A  citizen, rather than electing, decides whether to let the ones at the helm of the government to continue or not.

The result:

We shall have a proactive government, and a citizenry that is always free to pursue its call.

 

 

Book Review: THE NECESSITY OF ATHEISM

 Book Review: THE NECESSITY OF ATHEISM By DR. D. M. BROOKS. The book begins with an interesting quote from "Thus Spake Zarathrustra" of Friedrich Nietzsche. "..old Gods came to an end long ago. And verily it was a good and joyful end of Gods! They did not die ..but laughed themselves to death!" The last one to die perhaps announced, "There is but one God! Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." 

The first chapter is about THE EVOLUTION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, which says, "when man began to persuade the idols or spirits to do things for his benefit that religion began". As man progressed, his self-made religious conceptions too advanced, reaching finally, "the modern religionist who believes that the worship of a deity in our own age is far removed from the worship of an idol by our savage ancestors, and retraces his steps and calls itself a civilized mind. With whom, we all identify ourselves, worshiping his deity."

A good discussion on "THE KORAN, THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, THE PROPHETS MOHAMMED, JESUS, AND MOSES and other fundamentals of later religions, then follow. It is quite critical in both nature and content; the examination is through the eyes of a Martian. Further chapters examine other effects of religion, like the conception of physical disease as the result of the wrath of God, or the malice of Satan, or by a combination of both.

Another chapter examines the relation of astronomy and religion. In the very early days, the book observes, "..heavenly bodies were looked upon by the theologians as either living beings possessing souls, or as the habitation of the angels. However, as time passed, the geocentric doctrine, the doctrine that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun and planets revolve about it, was the theory that held the highest respect." And many centuries had to pass, before astronomy could flower as a worthy discipline. 

Witchcraft, slavery, and exploitation of labour are some of the entities that flourished with the help from religion, further discussions show.

The author I think is absolutely right, when he says, "..theology is based on science", and "we have a Theology of Gaps". That is, "wherever there are gaps in scientific knowledge", theologians insert a fitting idea, and calls it God. We are in fact living with agonies that are caused, whenever such ideas become a misfit. Rather, we can try atheism to act as a filling agent. 

Are we terrestrial?

 Well, human society always is, unlike that of all the other forms of life, a bunch of contradictions. We consider or take pride in all those as unique features of our race, venerating or celebrating it at every chance. But, by doing so, we are losing a valuable opportunity - one to learn more about ourselves. In fact, rather than examining critically and analysing it, as we do for all other matters in relation to the living and the non-living, we are dumping a clear paradox like this, for no worthy reason. And we do not realize it, being blinded by the pomp and the glory we accord to human race.

Why are there such contradictions within the same race? Is each human made up of a different life altogether, unlike the rest of life? The reason for such a disparity between human and all the other species of life could be attributed to the origins of each, I think. Perhaps, rather than a cultured monkey, our forefather is a descendant of something extraterrestrial.

One such possibility is, we could be having our origins in a comet like object.

Say, a life like constituent of such an object got dropped here during one of its visits, and it successfully endured the earth. Further adaptation occurred over many centuries, during which, it acquired the shape, size and other traits necessary to survive and flourish in this planet, progressively losing some or all of the original characteristics or features. Also, the possibility of intermingling between at least one of the many forms of life here, and the visitors, cannot be ruled out. Either, by the time the comet made another visit, they or descendants were not able to recognize each other, or, another visit is yet to take place. In fact all the observations and deductions of human evolution fits here perfectly well. Which can also explain easily, the existence of intermediate forms for the human, like Neanderthal, and the absence of any such, for all the other forms of life.

This could be fitting quite well with findings and discoveries of anthropology. Think of human nature, to start with. They begin their life as terribly weak ones, unable even to stand erect for some time, unless supported. Thereafter, one grows up to become capable of doing all that, but in a rather error-prone manner, unlike all the other occupants of this planet. They need to spend much of their life, just to learn, how to live. And then there is a need to practice, what one learns. Now, can’t we imagine of a different planet, whose ‘g’ shall not prevent the new-born ones from standing erect? Followed by a not so long period of growth, which shall not be calling for every sort of attention? One that has a different ambience, where our nature will be error free, like that all the other species of life?

Or, think of our actions. On the whole, the most admired ones are those that lead to destruction, of the current social order, or the way we progress our life. Think of a few great names chosen at random and one can easily confirm it as a fact. Like, Hannibal, Napoleon, Karl Marx, Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, Jesus Christ, Buddha, or Muhammed Nabi.

Think of resources. Those available in this planet are constantly depleting, posing a threat to the seamless continuation of human species. Either our pattern of utilization, that is our life itself, is wrong, or we belong to a different part of this universe where human specific needs are never in short supply.

Think of human child. Unlike the new ones of all other species of life, why should there be a need to learn everything afresh, like learning to walk? Or, why should it be told what not to eat?

Think of human lifestyle. One that is totally unsuitable for rest of the life, and the planet, little reflection can show. And also, constantly adding difficulties to the race itself?

Think of human intellect. One that is always coming up with fresh ideas. Mostly with the potential to cause some harm to humans themselves, if not to destroy the race completely. But, on a few occasions, such ideas could result in something good too. And, by extolling beyond all proportions, the latter, the former, though abundant, gets overlooked easily.

What do all these indicate? Humans do not belong to this planet? I feel so. The forefathers of humans would have been the constituents of a different planet, or a comet as mentioned before. And some of them happened to reach earth, which might even have been uninhabited.

Say, some of them would have survived the new environment. They would have been spending their days in total discomfort, trying meet the necessities of life with whatever limited was their adaptability to the planet. The initial generations faced severe issues related to food, shelter, coverings and all, setting in motion, evolution. And successive generations adapted well, putting a brake to it.

So, our roots could be elsewhere. Where, the prevailing environmental parameters would have been a suiting one, whether for humans, or for the real stock of that species, to live in total comfort, all through one’s lifetime. And as a result, all their intellectual transactions get absorbed in a seamless manner. We are yet to locate their descendants, or they haven’t been able to meet their ones of this planet, or each of them is unable to recognize the other one.