The Excess of “Gyaan”.

Sitting opposite to my interviewer,I was feeling strange-not nervous at all.I wanted to be nervous, but coudn’t manage to achieve it. He stretched his neck into the laptop and asked me to introduce myself. It was strange,for my resume covers most of me.I was numb for almost two minutes and then he argued further,”resume doesn’t talks” which I replied in haste, Ohhh!! You want me to talk..As I started pouring all my “Gyaan” infront of him..but i forgot to introduce my readers with this word called Gyaan..It means knowledge.Gyaan is a hindi word.So i strated pouring all my gyaan about my self infront of him, which invited unwanted attention and subsequent questions…As it enters into it’s final stage, My interviewer asked me , “why did you skip Kashmir and chose other news items”. To which i humbly replied that , I dont follow Kashmir..and invited a subsequent question, why?? I added further, I cannot see a state perpetrating atrocities on its own subjects..But the interviewer was a patriot, how can one criticize govt infront of him.He argued for stop reading ‘The Hindu” as its anti state..I was bewildered with this excess of Gyaan being poured upon me..I chipped in and countered, it’s pro people, pro citizen thinking and might at times be conflictual with the orthodox govt view but to change govt’s orthodox views on the matters of rights of individuals is what a responsible citizen and press strives for..The interviewer was confident, like all patriots.And he must be.He was overflowing with gyaan.And i was confused.

As we evolve, our abilities to understand things gets better.This doesn’t necessarily means that we ought to be responsible all the time. As a biological machine, we ought to make mistakes.To err is human, a famous saying argues.With evolution, as our capabilities enhance and some of us become more equal then others, we often get overwhelmed.Overwhelmed by the sheer joy of being an intellectual and a thinker.And sometimes a practitioner.There are ideas which captivate our imaginations. We make them our ideologies. I donot see affection but an attachment to ideas and ideologies.Its necessary at times, for it puts much needed passion and gravity in our actions or efforts.We strive and argue for and against and often in the process forget to learn.The idea of human machine is a self evolving one. How do we evolve?? I think by continuously challenging our preconceived notions and prejudices.It’s a much needed exercise which challenges the orthodox in us and enhances our rationality, before we go obsolete.The state of perpetual proclamation of sovereignty over knowledge and overwhelming zeal to act as the guardian of ideology is what I call as “Excess of Gyaan”. Is it harmful-in the relative terms it’s destructive.All of us, once or twice in life go through this zeal of overwhelming urge to pour our knowledge onto someone else and contend a right over his inability or confusion.So sure we do feel.Like my interviewer who was so sure of his acumen that he argued against a newspaper which has a history of fighting against britishers and socio economic and socio psychological disparity.How well thought he was before he astonishingly dethroned a millenia old newspaper from its right ful place.The argument here is that, how do we judge? Judgement demands understanding and subsequesntly I argue, do we have time to understand?? Most of us usually never bother of thinking.Perhaps that’s human nature.Then how do we evolve? How do we better ourselves? How do we break such stereotypes? It’s a bit tough situation.The argumentation has crossed limits of self correction.In order to put ourselves frankly, we are enforcing ourselves onto others.Do we ever think, whether to argue or not to??

This question brings me to another observation. Most of us argue in order to defeat.The argumentative character is somehow missing.The debates get passionate as huge amount of ego’s clash and inorder to attain somethinh we attain nothing but a demise , notonly of the level of public discourse but of the tradition and learning as well.The excess of gyaan hurts us severely here.Inability to understand that one must think whether is it necessary to make an argument and will it judge the other guy and if it does what rationale and reason do we have to substantiate our argument, is ironic.

At the core of argumentative nature is  a zeal to learn and as Professor Sen argues, an ability to not to get overwhelmed by an idea.The excess of Gyaan is a curse to healthy public discourse.It hampers growth and evolutionary process.It’s imperative to develop within ourselves a tendency to accept and embrace our existence along with counter currents as well.

Empathy And Relativity

Globalization has changed all the dynamics of the world. The politics of a nation cannot be seen from a parochial lense, for every other thing which happens globally affects it , in this or the other way.We don’t live in silos’s no matter how big a loner we are. On a broader ground we all are affected by what happens globally.Transport and then technology has revolutionized the world of information. We live in shared world of incidents, events jubilations and sorrows.Forgive me for not mentioning accidents.Transport first made the connectivity easy and accessable and then ever evolving Information and technology revolution actually plugged us into one loop.We share hope and sorrows with each other.The era is of ever evolving enlightenment where technology is enlightening us to the new vistas of happenings.How do we relate ourselves to the world is a subjective-if not positive sciences- decision.Social media has emerged as a powerful tool.A tool which has provided us with a platform onto which we can not only express and assume significance but listen and understand the world equally as well.It has its perils no doubt and we have all seen how it is being used as a tool by the propagandist organisations to fulfill their vested interest and in this way , it has become very hard for us to maintain neutrality in observing and understanding events in their full context. This forces us to look for relativity.

Without going into the multimillion dynamics of relativity as phenomenon , I would like to concentrate on the very effect of it on empathy.I think that the most easiest way to understand any concept is either by example or case study. This brings to us a more event by event but an evolved continuum.of thought.I would like to focus on the recent international acts of terror and our relative empathy shown–in terms of ethics why is it questionable?

A day before Paris attacks, suicide bombers killed more then 50 in beirut, lebanon. A few days back Russian plane which first thought to be crashed in Sinai , Egypt but later asserted to be bombed by the various intelligence agencies, killed all people on board.All 224 people.And then happened Paris more then 129 dead and many injured , fighting for life.Paris attacks happened much like our Bombay attacks. Yes in the same fashion , like Bombay has become a fashion in the world of terrorism.In all these attacks all equally valuable lives were massacred brutally.The common thread between all these attacks was Islamic state in Iraq and Levant (ISIL or ISIS) or “Daesh”–once a small offshoot of Al-quaeda — Jabhat an-Nuṣrah li-Ahli ash-Shām. The group has a $2bn  empire spread over Syria, Libya and Iraq. Taking the responsibility of the attacks the group swared for more of this type attacks at various parts of the world–Also confirmed by CIA Chief.Whole world mourned the Paris attack.It should.We ought to support humanity wherever possible.Its our Dharma indeed.Not religion of-corse.We supported people of paris in their fight against terror. The whole world united in this fight against terror against innocent lives.From Obama, China to G-20 , every leader and every country supported France.The empathy shown by the people of the world is remarkable.Technology unites us all in  tough times.But do u think we are equally emphatic in our fight against terror? DO you think we are equally assertive in expressing our support against terrorism? DO u thing we are equally empathic to other victims of terror at the various other parts of the world including the one’s i mentioned above? DO u think we are moved more by the global consensus and less by our own conscience? DO u think it is also a lack of information and vigor with which a cause is taken which affects our decision making capability , whether what to support and what to not? Is our empathy relative? Or we are selective in our outrage–a motive enforced upon dissenters now day’s in India.

A friend kold me up.We discussed current scenario on phone.He told me he got bullied by some right wingers for asking a simple question to Mr Mark Zuckerberg.The question was of ethics.WHere is my flag of beirut and Russia Mr Zuckerberg.A valid point from the lense of ethics. Yes I can judge.”Ethics deals with standard by which we judge human actions”.From the ethical point of view life of each and every  individual is important whether he be French or Russian or lebanon.Since Daesh was involved in all of these terror incidents , then it becomes another argument. Also to add , all attacks of terror must be denounced strongly in the same fashion.We ought to equate all incidents of terror and must strongly raise our voice against it.Zukerberg did it in one case and avoided in the other and since being a public personality, it’s his duty to show his dissent equally for other as well.We also cannot argue that he lacked information.Such an idea to relate ourselves to one society or people of one country and neglecting others , who too are equally being targeted shows a lack of ethics in orientation of our empathy.It reminds me of Orwell’s classic, Änimal Farm”in which he argues “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Those who killed in beirut and Sina were humans too.Victor hugo once argued –““Being good is easy, what is difficult is being just.”

It can be argued that i m in a hurry to judge as  seneca said…“Auditur et altera pars. (The other side shall be heard as well.)”.It’s a fair point.But there must come arguments from the other side , not personal attcks. We forget often that our opinion must be supported by arguments–facts ofcorse.We must have a context to talk about and reasons to form an opinion.To put a motive onto someone before understanding the gravity and depth of the argument is actually like killing the debate.It’s more of a generation of inherent fear , fear of being criticised, fear of being revealed, fear of being rightly understood, fear of some incapacity to comprehend the thought.It is complete lack of empathy–often inculcated by poor reasoning and relating our self to one ideology.Or in terms of Amartya sen, it’s like embracing identity as violence.My friend complained me.It was genuine complaint, because alleging someone to be a sympathizer for merely questioning ur reasons , only bigot’s do that or its a quality inherited by despots.George orwell once said , “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”It is his right as a democratic citizen to question, to put into public discourse what people ignore to hear or do not want to hear. There shud be some empathy on the part of reader to give space for the arguments to reveal the context and horizon of the thought or else he is jeopardizing Free thought.We must inculcate a just practice of empathy. We must show respect and sincerity in our arguments.Ethics tells us that every argument must be listened to before being judged.Every argument must be judged on the basis of systematic standards of reason.Only an independent listener can have a proper understanding of what a writer wants to convey.Being prejudiced by the relative identity will only jeopardize our discretion.Empathy must be just not relative.Orwell once argued, ““The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.” It all depends upon our preferences and values.

” Moral Upper Hand –How Fanatics DO It”

It is a good way to argue and base your argument on the premise that since none objected past therefore they shouldn’t bother about present and if they do then they should first wash their guilt by fighting for past and till then let the present take care of it self.The future so remains uncertain for those who strive to make present better.What possibly is the cause of this regressive stance? Present is present and though mistakes or deeds of past shall be brought to justice yet , present remains the most important event in life and , it is the duty of any individual to fight for justice if some event of injustice occurs in present. For example, If I did some wrong , or got caught doing some misdeed in past , does that means ,my reformation has no place in present society? If this is the case then , the one who raised arms against the state shall have no right to be rehabilitated ?
I fail to understand this argument where , one justifies his stance, he/she confirms that the action merely is a continuity of events and since none raised their voice in past therefore none should argue the present. What a folly of human reason it is , to evaluate present from the perspective of past ? what difference then present brought to the individual ? Is he not a prisoner of past then? Its like you wake up from a sleep and now you wish to work , so if u wish to work then first u should justify why u were asleep and whatever incidents took place during your sleep , you should first dealth with them no matter how much injustice being done in present? What then enlightenment means in a society like this? what then right to forget means in society like this? what then injustice means in a society like this?

The whole argument , That since u never spoke for that so morally you have no right to speak for this, shows a strategical move. The move can be broken in to few parts. One to have a moral superiority of action. Two Moral degradation of opponent. Confuse opponent in his own premise. Make opponent justify him/her self with a proof before he/she enters the argument there by breaking his will to resist or making his arguments weak.The effort is to take a moral upper hand while engrossing the opponents in pity counter accusation and diverting him/her self from the basic point.

GodMan and Us

To create a deeper passion which makes our senses idle and our capability to distinguish between right and wrong jeopardized , is an art. Those who excel in it transcend themselves into godmen. They make people incapable of rationalizing arguments and taking stands of their own. The manipulation of minds to such a degree is indeed a part of emotional intelligence that a Godmen possess due to his/her excellent argumentative as well as rather emotive manipulating skills.He blocks the cognitive capability of people who fail to hear any divergent arguments.The skills are developed and cultivated due to voracious human resource management capabilities.You often will find Godmen as Fiery orators , who have the capacity as well as capability to mesmerized masses with their side of truth. They all have certain truth in their hand which they proclaim as the undisputed truth.The steady accumulation of power makes them vulnerable as critics start to look at them as a fear to the sovereignty of the individual, which indeed is true.Sometimes I fail to understand the premise of the arguments of their followers. Are the arguments well thought ? Do they infact carry a premise or they are rather a culmination of emotional overflow? Thats really a remarkable point to ponder on.I have found by reading several comments, that most of the arguments in favor of the Godmen are rather premise less. they are hollow and they all show the same rhetoric which infact points degradation of followers consciousness.More of the followers take the truth as it is and fail to seek their own truth and that means as a Godmen u need to have the capability to influence masses to such an extreme level that they loose their own control over their own consciousness. The ego than starts to seek a confirmation of the manipulated version of truth and the words themselves provide the fodder to the ego.A question that also arises from this version of interpretation is that , How can we break this cycle of producing godmen?

Why do We need Symbolic representation ?? why not hard solutions for genuine problems???

Symbolic representation like in the picture  is done I blv , to catch imagination of people and to create  illusions so as to generate perfect reasons for procrastination. Power which is thought as a mean to facilitate hard solution often fails its prescribed role and becomes an end in itself.Power than means accumulation of more power and for that the benefit lies in keeping problems persistent in time and space.
People are impatient for the immediate redressal of their problems and symbolic 10264094_10154844142545245_862282618765283278_orepresentation creates the required myth or illusion and hence puts the grievances in cold.

1836848_10154844143140245_856774329647188375_o.Symbolic representation is also necessary to perpetuate  propaganda on a virtual ground so that  it remains popular in public discourse and vested interest can earn political points.This also helps followers of the concerned political party to make a stand against the critics, for visibility even on virtual grounds seems unarguable to them, which certainly is not.
The announcement of real hard solution needs time and coherent effort in right direction which requires many discerning but like minded people who can create consensus in any democratically elected or constituted think tank or body.And for that one requires ample of time , Then hw can we maintain the faith of people in governance , A way is symbolic representation , it creates an illusion that the governance is at work or the political leadership is in action while they might be smoking marijuana i n some corner .

“What Is It”

What Is it That Drives mind out of its arena of rationality to do things inconceivable to normal human mind?? What is it That digs up the hidden passion from within to the floor and forces us to do things which though consciously achieved but cant be consciously imagined of??? What Is it that divides the mother from its child?? what is it that makes us loose our own identity and merge us all into a common identity?? how , how and How can an idea overtake the very mind which generated it ?? What is it that allows an idea to not only shape but to engulf our identity?? How out of our ignorance we generate more ignorance?? What Is it That hinders our vision, hinders our sight , hinders our consciousness , hinders our sensitivity hinders our feelings , feelings of compassion , love , tolerance , and forgiveness for fellow brethren ??? What is it that turns an idea into an ideology and an ideology into an identity and an identity into violence ??? Why do we wish to enforce our own ideology onto others ?? Do we like slaves ??? or are we slaves ?? Slaves , of fragile ideas, or rigid personality?? Slaves , of feeble minds or incoherent identity, or soundless blind sights?? What is it that makes us loose our own vision and we are all driven , driven like a paper in the storm .?? what Is the limit of our satisfaction?? When and how we gonna feel that the questions are wrong pretentions of our self and actually we all are far away from questions , we all are living in abyss , an abyss of hollow future less harsh reality, of which we hardly have an idea or even if we have , we are so drowned into the abyss that we have become part of it or it has become a part of us and hell , we just dont wish to go beyond , go out and face the reality?? What is it that makes us so regressive?? what is it that makes power so desirable ?? Even when its the most delusional thing ?? even when we know it corrupts us ?? what is it that asks us to kill our own ethos and morality just taste the bitter salt of Power ?? what is it ??? What is it that kills the human within and lets the monster to ride the body ????What is It ????????????????????