Your Best Friend is Franky Fear

Your best friend is Franky Fear. A fighter’s best friend is his fear; one shouldn’t be ashamed of it. It keeps you fighting till the end for survival. It is like this fire inside which you need to control; when controlled it provides heat, keeps you going; but the moment it starts controlling you, it burns you down to ashes.

-          Sylvestor Stallon (as Rocky Balboa) in Rocky V

Every force in this world is just like the fire within. It is like a double edged sword which can be as good as bad. Then why do we have rigid notions about different forms of forces being right and wrong, good and bad, advisable and non-advisable? Why do we have people fighting over clash of ideologies, over clash of egos, clash of interests, trying to prove that ‘I am right, you are wrong’? Every clash in this world is based on different notions of right and wrong, but is there actually a force which is inherently right or inherently wrong?  As quoted above, fear, which is considered as a sign of cowardice, is also the driving force. Likewise, ambition is bad when used as a justification for trampling people over and violating fiduciary duties, but it is good for personal growth and development. A person being selfish may be not be one of the most caring people but if that person attaches you to himself/herself, the same selfishness becomes safety/security. And to speak in a generalized way, knowledge/intelligence is good generally but is bad if used for undesirable ends like terrorism or for settling personal vendetta; being peaceful is good as you don’t get involved in fights but it makes the person boring and lethargic.

The point being that every force in this world has potential to create as well as to destroy; it all depends upon how it is used. A combination of these forces and the method of their usage on an abstract level constitute the character of a person. Therefore, no person is inherently good or bad (except Vasanthi) but is considered to be so based on how a person shapes the forces constituting his or her character. Therefore, suppose if a person is actually being an ass and pissing someone off by being bitchy and/or malicious and/or slimy/spineless, then the person who is at the receiving end of this can use the forces in a positive manner by not bitching or being malicious in return. Otherwise, if both the parties become malicious towards each other, then, even if one of them is justified in bitching, it will render the same status of bitchiness or malign to such an otherwise innocent party as well. For it is not the status of a person that fixes his/her role/character but the character/role of a person that fixes his/her status (Following from what Millett J. pointed out in Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1998] Ch. 1, that a person is “not subject to fiduciary obligations because he is a fiduciary; it is because he is subject to them that he is a fiduciary”)

Very often, I feel that basic things in life are neglected and forgotten. Let’s say, the teachings which one gets as a child which form the basis of one’s character and conscience, are hardly followed once a person grows up, while such simplest of teachings contain the deepest and profoundest of philosophies. I still remember this one story which I had in Hindi Literature course in my class 6 or 7 (don’t remember the class exactly). That story was about a mirror maze where any person or animal standing in the middle would see his own multiple reflections in every direction. Now it basically shows different stray dogs accidentally entering that place. First enters a dog who gets scared by seeing so many reflections, gets insecure, and starts barking in retaliation even though there was no threat to him. What he sees is multiple images of dogs of different shapes and sizes barking at him in a strong sense of insecurity and shooing him away just like he did to the mirror. Ultimately, the dog leaves the maze. Then enters a dog that is in a very aggressive mood, and the moment he sees an image in the mirror, he starts barking violently and starts charging towards it. The image also comes equally close charging at him with an equal furor and ultimately both collide, the dog falls down. Like a loser that dog runs away from that place in anger. Then entered the third dog that enters the maze happily, observes multiple images, happily starts playing with them, and enjoys his time without getting insecure by the presence of other images but by using the same force of multiple images to his advantage and enjoyment, after which he leaves the place.

This clearly illustrates that the same thing which reflected hatred or insecurity for two dogs reflected play and cheer for another. The difference lied in the default attitude of the third dog and the usage of force for proper ends in a proper way. The mirror maze is nothing but the world at large, a symbolization of the law of karma rather, and the time spent in the middle is our life. Ultimately we all have to go away from the centre of the maze but we should consider how we go away and how did we spend the time at the centre. For a dog which saw a growling and frowning image and retaliated with a frown himself, the entire time went in frowning which was justified for him. However, for a dog which sees a frowning image and overlooking or letting go of the reasons to frown, chooses to smiles at it, ultimately sees a smiling image only. Sometimes the glass of the mirror in the maze might be thick enough to refract and hence, distort the image, but the third dog takes that as a matter of play and continues enjoying his time.

However, even this story is based on an assumption that playing and being happy would amount to a proper usage of force instead of frowning and attacking. That might not be the case always. A person might say that she/he enjoys making things complicated, bitching about others or to disrespect and humiliate others. Basically, it might be in the nature of a person to fight with others. Here again, I am reminded of those childhood teachings where I was told that there is no prosperity where there is no peace or where there is a lot of fighting. If we observe it practically, we are often left amazed at the veracity of this simple conclusion. I was told in my early years of life that I should not disrespect anyone. Now even if I find ample reasons for disrespecting certain people (which is inevitable in a place like this), there is no license for me to start disrespecting people. What reasons can probably go on to justify disrespect? If I was told as a child that there is God in everyone, how does that get negated when I grow up unless I myself ignore the God within me?

Whatever reasons and justifications we might find for ill-will for a certain people; we can never deny the observations based on our personal experiences that there is actually less or no prosperity where there are too many fights and the other way round. Driven by self interest, this just blocks the idea of fighting in the first place. The reason for this is the most uncontestable reason, that of choice. Observing the rock logic – water logic dichotomy, it can be safely deduced that in respective contexts, both the arguments i.e. to fight or to not fight, can be justified with enough reasons and therefore, based upon the choice of context depends the notion of correct or logical. Therefore, if a person chooses the context of karma and prosperity, then it is only logical to ensure peace even if it requires one to compromise on ego or self importance. After all, for the attainment of ultimate goal, a prioritization or evaluation of acts has to be done in accordance with the context. If the context, however, has the ultimate aim of self satisfaction of ego and self consciousness at a superficial level so as to place self importance and the artificial sense of victory in prevailing over others, then logic within such context will not consider fighting or lack of prosperity any bad.

Therefore, the use of every force depends on our choice.  Whether we want to make or to break also depends on our choice. Our choice is that of a contextual structure or a value system which is influenced by the simple things taught to a person as a child. Where we actually go wrong is in being inconsiderate to such a treasure of philosophies, in being spineless in the true sense by giving up our beliefs and getting inclined towards the easier alternative. The main purpose of teaching us as kids is to build a character-base and if we do not take that into account, then it is a waste. If all of us would have still remembered and respected the teachings given to us in childhood, then we would not have had the hatred, the irritation, the Ill-will and the irretrievable breakdowns of friendships among us; the sense of insecurity and self interest can be discharged even through those means which are consistent with our basic learning. 

Life of Optimism - Random and Arbitrary

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!