Back to the activity of so called self importance after a long time. So many things came to mind but never felt like blogging them for various reasons, rather just didn't choose to blog them, no reasons for that.. and that's what this post is going to be about - no reasons!
Interning with Dhanda and that too in the company of Abdaal has certainly reinforced my thoughr process, and in this post and also lately, it goes beyond any reason, it demolishes the entire concept of reason and reaches a level as arbitrary and fair as 'choice'.
Initially, during the training for our Centre for Disability Studies, I realized a lot of things which gave a perfect structure and logical connection to my thoughts and views.
'Diversity is good for humanity.' Thus runs the first basic premise of our centre's general approach. Accommodating persons with huge differences and diversities together is not harmful but beneficial for everyone! For instance, if in a class, there are some students who take time to understand due to whom the teacher needs to simplify (not dilute) the substance that is being taught, even the sharper ones can get more time to better understand, analyse and ruminate upon it. If there is a slope beside a fleet of stairs to accommodate the needs of persons on wheelchairs, it can be used by fit persons carrying their wheeled luggage as well! Living with people belonging to different cultures and religions can make us more accommodative in our approach and can contribute to our personality, nature and exposure of mind. In this way, accommodating diversity will always result in something good for everyone. Now this is a very very optimistic way of looking at things which are the root of all disputes and violence in our country - lack of accommodation, ego issues, class differentiation on a social (and hence, subjective) level.
'Since disability is not in anyone's control to prevent and cure, it is an integral part of our society and hence, we need to change our attitude and be accommodative towards the disabled and include them as much as everyone else in the society. More inclusive the society, the better it is', thus said Dhanda. The amount of respect i have gathered for her is not because of her stature or her famous 'magnanimous personality' but because of her views. The above mentioned statement is full of suggestions about mutual self respect and equality. Equality of that what everyone deserves. Our Constitution itself states that every citizen shall be secured of 'equality of status and opportunity'. So I came to the conclusion from our training that at least no one should be denied opportunity for no fault of his/her, like being from a particular section of society or being disabled (of course, due to one's own actions, someone like a criminal may be denied opportunity as a punishment). And so should everyone be secured the equality of status - not the economical or social or political status, but the status of being a conscientious, righteous and an innocent human being having the same rights and opportunities as everyone else.
This proposition set me thinking about the relevance and importance of opportunity. A major critique of the existing disability laws was that of the appointment of a guardian who'd make decisions for the mentally disabled. In her cliched example, AD had stated how every person is capable of forming a choice and the addition of adjectives like 'rational' is purely subjective. A person would want to splurge on one outing in a month and utilize the remaining budget in meager amounts for the rest of the days, but that would be his/her choice. Rather if a guardian is appointed for that person just because the majority thinks he/she cannot make any choice for himself/herself or none other than a harmful choice and therefore, 'for the best interests of that person', some other person is to decide, it would be a total disrespect of the person's individual identity and existence. To have a free-choice is a basic prerequisite of one's individual existence (and by free-choice i mean free from any other person's control not free from your own mind and memories!).
Hence, it made me wonder, how important the freedom of having one's own choice is to any person. A person is said to be mature if he/she decides rationally i.e. after calculating which way is more beneficial and which one is harmful. The basis for deciding what is beneficial and what is harmful is nothing but the happiness and satisfaction one gets in making a particular decision. Many a times we have to sacrifice our choice and will for 'the greater good' or for 'our own benefit in the long run'. Now this perplexes me! How can we so confidently predict the future? (astrologers, astronomers, palmists, etc. are no good answer to this) Even if we do go with a presumption about future, we need to mark certain conditions as desired/good and certain conditions as undesired/bad. This labeling process, i think, suffers from stereotype to a hopeless extent. After all, the only measure to analyse and decide between situations is the pursuit of happiness. Whatever an individual may choose/want to do would be something that would give him/her happiness and to that extent there should be total freedom on an individual level.
For an optimist, every situation has something positive and therefore, there is happiness at every situation. In accordance with a few principles which are the jus cogens or say 'the basic structure' of oneself, optimism requires you to be happy with everything. Basically, if looked at the larger picture, the sum total of all judgmental values of the possible situations in all choices that we have is the same (which i want to consider as zero). So that means that the concept of opportunity cost just ceases to exist when you talk about making choices and decisions on the basis of what will keep you happy, if you are an optimist! Hence, your all the decision making points of life would lie on an indifference curve. Therefore, if you are an optimist, i.e. if you are happy with the way things happen in life, if you go with the flow, if you realize that in a long run, a difference of choice despite however drastic as it may appear on a short run, can be accommodated for a better life, then the very term 'rational choice' becomes redundant. That is to say that there is no basis for you to decide what will make you happy (or be good/beneficial for you) as you know that you would be equally well, comfortable and happy in any situation. However, an optimist is also human and hence has some choices which become the guiding basis for life. Therefore, I say, an optimist's life is as random and arbitrary and fair as his/her choice! There is so much freedom that no one else can govern his/her life though others' advices are considered depending upon the choice of the individual!
This arbitrariness is not totally unguided though (see... didn't i previously once say that everyone is like the constitution, so how can Art. 14 be violated?!). The jus cogens or the 'basic structure' which everyone has, governs the choices which an individual might make. Therefore, being cool with anything does not mean that you don't have a spine and that you mindlessly do what others do but to do what you feel like in accordance with your basic structure. Thus, being an optimist, having a random and arbitrary life, and in accordance with a basic structure which realizes and respects the importance of freedom of choice of all others along with his/her, shapes one's behavior to be all-inclusive, tension free, superficially stoic or expressionless, respectful of mutual freedom and individuality and thus, non-judgmental about others. Kind of a utopia but not impossible!
