Emotional negligence

 In continuation of the previous post and a recent event happened to me personally warranted another reflection on the social normalisers that end up dividing the people more. One of the normaliser which is prevalent within any group of individuals, societies, civilisations is the faculty of rational and its practice as philosophy. As if we try to explain human behaviour, or zooming in on our mind, we will find the "reasoning-emotion" duality and sadly the science has tackled mostly the reasoning part of our mind because of apparent reasons; reasoning has an objective interface which we can extract, isolate, examine, experiment and even teach and instil. Also for the practical reasons, rational is the tool we have used to build our politico-economical structures. 

These structures have moulded our way of thinking, dealing with problems in a way that we tend to completely negate the emotional side of the issue. This approach works well within the businesses, corporates, to some extend in policy making but this fails miserably in the context of people level. Most of the problems on people level have mostly the emotional impetus than rational one and the proper solution can only come with factoring in the emotional side of it. 

This possesses another problem which is "impossibility" to understand the emotions as they are completely subjective and the only tool we have to express the emotions is the language (which will segue the whole discussion here if we open the inability of languages to completely express what we feel). Hence conversing becomes so important to understand the emotional side of the human beings. 

Human precondition,,,

Politically not enough, in the field of fiction, many have imagined to normalise the society. The idea is to establish a society with uncompromisable equality and opportunities given to every member of the society. Even in the limitless imagination, none was able to still imagine a society which will not divide it self. The reason is the precondition of our self actualisation. Hegel has described this condition eloquently in his mister servant dialect. Since it takes two to recognise one as one gets self awareness in the conscious of the other, the struggle to slave the other will be the inevitable consequence.

In the wake of this precondition, we see many divisors in the social structures; e.g. classes, financial stature. religion, politics, caste/creed/cult etc. Sadly the easy way out to normalise a society, it is always suggested to eradicate the dividers like classes, religion, money etc. This is such a self futile exercise because this just addresses the symptoms but not the cause. Removing these dividers will allow other narratives  to create the wall of "they versus us". I feel by accepting the nature of "human condition" we should thrive for creating a just society rather than employing all the energy in eradicating the dividers.  

Irrelevant generation,,,

 Analysing the present society, the one which you are part of, is not possible. It is on the same lines as trying to analyse a language; the language is ever evolving and the tools you will use to evaluate the language lies in the same entity you are trying to evaluate. The same conundrum is present in analysing the current society. 

This doesn't mean that we should never take a project of understanding our surrounding, one way is to have "mein Gefühl" which is always subjective and not scientific approach. The other one is to look in inherent structures, deconstruct the building blocks and then can study them, at least theoretically. One project with latter approach that I know of is in detailed analysis of capitalism by Marx. This leads me to steal his idea of "alienation" and apply to the current generation I belong to, "the millennials". As I strongly believe the advent of data has killed the "freelance Philosophy". Now you can not philosophise without presenting the data,  and there is a lot of material and studies done on this matter, so I will take the former approach and try to do some "subjective objectification" here. I feel that "millennials" are the most irrelevant generation to exist in the modern history. The reason is that we are in transitional state. Since we got sandwiched between completely non technological generation (baby boomers) and completely technologically oriented generation. We are swaying between romanticism of "soft days" and the nostalgia associated with it. One example is how we are looking for jobs, I do remember when I was growing up I was still looking for classified pages in newspapers (probably an idea which is non existence now).  This can be observed in many aspects of our social interaction too. That is why I feel we are alienated by our predecessor and successor generations because we are in "hybrid" mode and sadly when we will fade away, we will be forgotten as this happens with any transitionary entity,,,  

 

           

 

 

 

Denazification process

 Recently I had a privilege of watching "The Zone of Interest" by Jonathan Glazer in a kino. The movie won Oscars for the best foreign movie and best sound. The movie is not an easy watch by any mean as the topic is very hard to digest. After contemplating for a while, I realised one underlying theme of the movie is "humanising the Nazis" and discuss the idea of "banality of the evil". 

Humanising the Nazis in modern day literature or media is a project to portray Nazis attached with all the nuances and emotions a normal human being has instead of portraying them in comic or pure evil embodiment. I believe this approach is imperative if we ever want to understand the inherent structures that can enable "evil" to happen. Only in this scheme we can understand why humans act in certain ways in certain situations.

This scheme can also shed the light on the issue why atrocities happen in a "loop or in Ewige Wiederkunft" and can highlight the shortcoming of the DeNazification process which was more focussed on punishing the people rather than deconstructing the structures that enabled Nazis to go to the unspeakable length of erasing one human race. Also this scheme can show us that in coming days the same elements can be triggered with different set of people/race, different modus operandi but with the same efficacy and results. One does not have to go far to see the real life and heart wrenching example of same "evil" occurring in the land of Palestine,,,

Collectiveness

 The life is, "something onto death".  As if this is the state of life,  the adage, "live every moment" is a self defeating argument (if we accept to live every moment, the reality is that every moment we breath brings us closer to our inevitable end). The reality of life is inherently a depressive affair but it is the only certainty. Actually this certainty is the only standardiser for humans.  One of the human instinct is to create a divide,  establish a narrative of us and them. The reason of this divide is rooted to establish power over others. We will find a reason to separate ourselves by using either social elements (sub or super structures) or our humanly features like colour of skin etc. With all our differences and nuances, which actually makes us human and interesting, but then why we need to standardise humans? Will it reduce "the humanness" in us? 

I believe if we ever want to derive the purpose of life, we can use this standardised state of life which no living being can release themselves from. If we are all susceptible to death, then we can give up all the dividers to converge to build a purposeful life for everyone. This means that finding  the "meaning/purpose" of life is a collective exercise. So even though life is lived individually but its worth is materialised collectively,,,

Post Colonial Conflict

It is a noble idea to align with a cause, to side with the oppressed and be a voice of the unheard ones. Since we are living in a hyper real world where identity of individuals has shifted from authenticity to profilicity, this has effected every aspect of our modern day interaction, mainly on the social medium. 

This has enabled people to build an opinion, take sides and be an "online warrior" without understanding the idea, concept, problem and wage their own narrative behind the wall of their "profile". This phenomena has severe consequences, which can actually sabotage the cause and pollute its reality. 

The convoluted history of "Israel-Palestine" conflict is the best example where everyone wanted to get on the bandwagon of opinions and taking sides without understanding the core problem. 

"Israel-Palestine" problem was never a "Muslims vs Jews" issue, but is a social experiment to settle a group of people in a preoccupied land by colonial masters. This conflict is purely a "post colonial" in its nature . It is not a question of pluralism as Muslims, Jews and Christians lived side by side for centuries if not millennium. With the post colonial lens, one can see that it becomes quite clear that Israel is not synonym to a Jewish nation but a Zionist one. This division is imperative to understand the subtle difference, it is on the same lines as all Talibans are muslims but not all muslims are Talibans.

The sad truth of the post colonial world is to accept the "social experiments" done by our colonial masters, which means Israel is a reality. The only plausible solution of the problem is to listen to the political direction and understanding that has been established by UN. The only solution would be to reinstate the 1967 borders and instil two states. Once this will be done, the side effects like Hamas will be dealt with dialogue (American Taliban model) or if not with power. 

Conveniently legal,,,

 An inherent problem of any law;  divine, democratic, dictatorial or in any structure it is being established, it will be a generalisation of a situation. This means there will be a group of people for whom the law will be "inconvenient" and for some or many, it will be "convenient" to follow. For example if the government prohibits alcohol usage, I will be the least person bothered by it since I do not consume, for me abiding the law will be just convenient where if the government bans meat, I will be completely taken back. 

This nature of law puts an onus on the people of privilege to first accept this and then make sure that they do not use the law to exploit or make the life hard for less privilege ones. The "privilege" here is solely associated to "power" structures and one should be very empathetic to keep the balance of power intact,

I would like to cite two examples to clear the subtle misuse of "law" that seeps in and changes the balance of a society. As it is easier to start something than to end it, if we are not aware of this from the start of this imbalance, it will be completely impossible to rectify it. 

Recently my landlord are increasing my rent, this breaks the legal limit of rent increase and also changes the rent average of my neighbourhood, now if I conveniently or rather I acquiesce the increase, probably I may still conveniently pay it but it may create an imbalanced for others, Also discussing this with a friend of mine who has already sided himself with the "dark side" and he is even encouraging this as he mistakenly thinks this will allow a conducive market for builders to make more houses. His belief is a direct consequence when you allow the "law of convenience" get established which disconnects you from the others.

Second example is the one which is post facto, where we allowed the imbalance of power brew and now the conflict is to the point where political pundits are saying that there is a no solution. Some 150 years ago when we allowed a social experiment to happen in the name of "coming back to home" to a pre occupied land. Now fast forward, it is convenient for one party to keep the atrocities happening in the name of defence, and for the power holders who can establish a rule based order are conveniently ignoring it.

Modern day state of the affairs,,,

 Legend says there was a town, people were in some plenty, gleeful and only entertainment was a circus. The favourite act was by a clown with an absurd and hilarious Pantomime routine. For decades the Clown entertained the civil crowd and they were always satiated after the show. But as time passed, the size of the crowd started to reduce. The owner of the circus, worrying about lost of the interest but much more of the profit, understanding the unsaid demand of the crowd, introduced two more clowns to have more routines and options for the crowd. The crowd started to pour in but to dismay of the owner, the crowd started to decrease again. Worried to lose money, he ordered the clowns to do whatever to retain and engage the crowd as much as possible. The clowns started to improvise on the stage, the one with Mime as his forte is now limericks, the one on unicycle is parodying. The boundaries of their niches start to become more fluid, and the most sad part was that the more violent or shocking their act was, the more applause they got from the crowd. It was so hard to make a distinction now whether the crowd is deciding what they enjoy or the clowns are deciding for the crowd. In the end the it has become a circus of people, for the people and by the people.

Cleft individual

"Where are you from?", a very innocent question in asking, and being on the receiving end of it one time too many,  the question is quite abhorrent in its utility. This question is the gateway to a cultural bias, borderline racism. This question is a sentimental reminder to all with "cleft identities", these are the ones who are in between the two extremes of culture. The ones who have two or more orders/contexts to satisfy or align their experiences. This creates a disharmony of  "ontological security" in an individual.  

Furthermore the question becomes tragic because "cleft individual" is also not able to identify much with the cultural entities he was born or raised. In the end they are a "disorder" to a culture they are trying to survive and probably a "heretic" to the culture they belong to. 

mit Gefühl

 In the realm of observable, science does bring an objectification but dealing with sentient beings, we do have another medium of establishing some objectification. I am talking about subjective objectification, an internal compass (mit Gefühl) that we all have. This indicator is always bias, it is the birthplace of all the conflicts but also it is the source where all the beautiful expressions sprouts from (in shape of art, poetry, literature, love etc). Since we are living in the times they are a changin, this internal and mostly self righteous element of feelings has taken precedence over thinking. This change has warranted a change in our identity facet from "I think therefore I am" to "I feel therefore I am". This subtle change has huge implications as with this framework, any order that is created will precede any rationality and alliances will converge to homogenous feelings (and feelings are homogenous in their validation but not at the source),,,

Normally deviated

On the onset of realisation that I am closer to senility than my youth on life's chronology, it warrants me to look back onto my "becoming". Since I can never shove the fact that we are social beings, I wanted to shift the focus from me to what the society has become. This view is from a mere observer and does not hold any academic substance. In general what we say from one's heart.

I would say this is the "standardised society". Everything is standardised, for instance our educational system. Bunch of people clammed together being taught the same syllabus, same information is thrown to all regardless of individual's capability to apprehend. 

Also the concept of success is quite standardised, it revolves around money, influence, personal charisma etc with adage, more the merrier.

We are stacking humans in a normal distribution, and this structure gives birth to inherent hatred at worst and dislike at best to outliers who lie on the right side. In this normalised society where individuality is murdered, no one wants to be among the "lost souls". Systematically they are pushed to struggle hard and have to face victim blaming. I will conclude that in these times, once deviated, one should ask for help sooner than later,,,

Some observations on love

 In our collective consciousness, an idea has seeped in that love should be unconditional. The yardstick to judge quality of love is always appropriated with the adage, "how unconditional the love is".  The confusion arises from the imaginative part of love, when we imagine the purest love, we always associate unconditionality to it. In practice, love is very "conditional", just imagine one finds out the person they loved to the core of their heart, is a serial killer or a pedophile etc. Your love will dry out or at least won't be the same (if it doesn't then you have to answer some questions on your own and love will be the least problem on your plate). In reality, "condition" is something inherent to practical love. I believe when someone asks you why you love them, you should not have any reasons.  If you have reasons then you can always question them, "why" can interject along with comparison and that will be the start of the end. I believe love should be "unreasonable" and not "unconditional".

Unboxing the relations,,,

 Duality is one aspect we can not just shun away easily. It is almost every where. Arabic has even incorporated the fact in their dual noun. Usually we taste the duality just when we are conscious of ourselves. We know that the apparent composed appearance is so vibrated and agitated inside. 

Relationships have the same duality aspect. One is the nomenclature of the relationship like mother, daughter, son, father, friend, partner etc. Other is the actual human being to whom one applies the relationship. I like to give an example of a box (the relation) and then you can put a person in that box. The box has certain expectations and the person in the box is always trying to fulfil those expectations. The genealogy of expectations is a debate in itself so won't expound in this post.

There is a further distinction in the relations, one are where we are thrown into. These are inside out relations as we are more aware of the box and less of a man. Hence you will hear people claiming that their parents are the best, or worst as matter of fact. Sadly most of the time we never connect to the person inside. These relationships come with perpetual security, you can't untie the knot ever. The other relations are outside in, these are the one where you connect with the person first. These relations do not have perpetuity. The former ones are the one who you are and latter ones are the one who you become. 

Cyclic Argument

 I haven't met anyone else than human who has called  me human. Likewise when someone calls you judgemental is proof enough that they are judgemental too. No one can describe how chilli tastes unless until they haven't tasted it themselves. This argument is cyclic in nature, it only differs by the magnitude of said judgement as "we all are judgemental but some are more judgemental than others"

Millennials without a cause,,,

Complete your studies, acquire some skill, get a job, get some money, marry, have a house and a car, have kids, and then die. This is the "de facto" life package for past generations. This is the what they call normal and any deviation to this pattern is deemed abnormal or even sacrilegious.
I was born in mid 80's, child of 90's. I am what they call millennials, but I do not adhere to the definition by the year I was born in, but by the attributes of the "Gen Y". I personally feel millennials are the "deviation" of the above said pattern. Millennials is the generation which has been exposed to one of the biggest achievements of the mankind, information technology. It has endued a certain sort "self consciousness". It is also very fluid, people have many personas manifested through different social outlets. Which makes it very difficult to even know one self let alone being extended to others.
So as long as one is refusing to be normalised,  they are millennials without a cause.