To Be or Not To Be

A little kingdom I possess,
Where thoughts and feelings dwell;
And very hard the task I find
Of governing it well.
~ Louisa May Alcott

...that more or less describes my situation!

~A Wise Man Said~

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
~ Aristotle
Friday, July 31, 2020
 
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

~ Carl Sagan

I notice this logical fallacy everywhere around me. There is a tendency to give more weight to the appearance of things or make judgements based on the appearance of things rather than digging deep to investigate their true nature for oneself. Even if one does this the reaction to appearances is so strong in today's culture that debate and dialogue seem to have no room to breathe. Take for example the question of whether art must be considered as separate from the artist. This question usually seems to evoke emotional responses rather than logical ones and if one were to hold the view that the art must be judged by its own merit you are somehow deemed to side with artists who are perpetrators of horrendous crimes! In short, the possibility of a nuanced view is rejected. I find this sort of thinking not only oppressive but also a threat to critical thinking and expression in general. It's like someone posing an open-ended question and then demanding that you answer in either true or false terms. If you are concerned about an authentic response you cannot respond to the question at all and are rendered dumb. The result is that only people who think in narrow yes/no or true/false categories are the ones able to have their say and it is their narrow worldviews that dominate.
Considering that it is possible to enjoy forms of art such as say music with no knowledge of the artist at all it seems strange to me that an artist's culpability must be extended to anyone who enjoys their art. If the artist's (or philosopher’s or scientist’s) character must be validated before we access their art then what list of criteria are to be applied to validate character, who is to decide the criteria, and by the standards of which time/place because every period of history and every culture must have its own standards of good/bad character...as indeed even art is historical/cultural? But it's only when one is open to a nuanced view that these questions present themselves. The majority though do not care about nuance or complexity... answers are reduced to this or that... if you're not with me then you're against me. And if you are against me you are a villain. And if you are a villain you deserve to die...
I am quite troubled by this trend.

posted by Sylvia D'souza at 10:23 pm 0 comments
Monday, July 27, 2020
 
I haven't felt so out of hope in a long while. In the last few years certain things turned out in my favour after a long hard road and I learnt the lesson that if you stick it out, the road will be eventually smoother. This year has thrown a huge spanner in the works with everything taking a nosedive with the pandemic and I have been trying very hard to keep my equanimity. At every little failure I have kept my chin up and looked toward the next possibility. But today, when the nth time I met with failure, it was like a dam burst inside me. It became a bit overwhelming. I had to finally look up and say to God that my patience is wearing out, that I could see no path ahead, that I would be forced to admit defeat if things went on this way...

The other day I read about this story in the ancient Indian epic, Mahabharata. I don't remember its details (so don’t quote me on it ;)) but it was to the effect that two people were fighting with each other arguing that the other should keep a piece of property as it rightfully belonged to the other and not themselves. They go to Yudhishtara (I think) and while they are thus fighting he excuses himself for a few minutes. When he's back they happen to be fighting for the opposite cause, that is, to keep the property for themselves. Yudhishtara says that kal or time had changed with virtue giving way to greed. What struck me about this story was the concept of “kal” or “time” not as a flow of passive temporality within which humanity lives out its lives and concerns but as something meaningful in itself, or something that shapes our lives and concerns rather than simply hanging in the background like a calendar. The reason this idea feels salient to me now is that time appears to have suddenly turned against us at the turning of 2020 and we seem to have entered a bad time so to speak. And all we can do now is wait for "time" to change gears...because none of this is in our control. It is up to time to speak.

posted by Sylvia D'souza at 3:09 am 0 comments
Wednesday, July 22, 2020
 
I have been watching this Japanese series on Netflix called Midnight Diner: Tokyo Stories. I am enjoying it quite a bit because for one it feels like a window into Japanese life and culture, and for two it has a food theme. The Japanese dishes seem to be of another world; things I have never heard of or seen or dreamt! I learnt of foodstuff like weiner which is a fish sausage or bonito flakes which are dried fish flakes or noodles in a bun or deep fried yam or rolled sweet omelette. The Diner owner/chef who is referred to as 'Master' makes whatever the customer requests as long as he has the ingredients available; people are free to bring their own ingredients as well. There is something very heart-warming about the Diner place which opens at 12 midnight. I sometimes wonder if the details accurately represent Japanese life such as the fact of regular working people going to diners after 12 as if it's the most normal hour to go out for food or if some details are exaggerated to suit the theme—the problem is I wouldn't know which is which!

There was this scene in an episode I watched yesterday. Without going into the details, a young lady who is a regular customer for something called "cat rice" (it seems as if this is food that's usually served to cats) and for whom the Master has something of a soft spot dies; the day she dies he has this vision of her coming to the diner at the usual time for cat rice. He soon realises that she isn't actually there so he keeps the rice outside for cats. He finds the news of her death in the paper and after a while when he opens the door there is a cat happily eating the rice. He fondly looks at her and says, "Welcome back"!

Upon watching this scene my personal interpretation was that the girl is seen to have come back as an animal spirit in a very abstract sense. There was no explanation offered so it seems as if one expected the Japanese viewer who might be the imagined viewer to just get it. I am not sure what the Japanese think happens after death but this scene didn’t jar or shock my Indian sensibilities at all. I did not find it strange or out of the ordinary to find such a plot in a story. But the fact that it did not get a reaction from me different from the one a Japanese person might have had (keeping aside the subtle interpretational differences) actually made me wonder, how would a Western sensibility perceive this scene? How would it appear from a completely rational framework where it’s taken for granted that there’s nothing after death or at best there's heaven/hell. I am not saying that it has anything to do with actual belief; whether I actually "believe" one could come as an animal to eat food right after dying is not the point at all but what I am referring to are the frames through which we view the sense world and beyond dividing the rational and irrational neatly or blurring them. No one would think of the Japanese as irrational and they are perhaps seen as the most Westernised among Eastern nations (I assume?) but it seems as if in the East rationality seems to coexist happily with irrationality rather than crowding it out. There were many episodes that referred to astrologers, auspicious food, things which brought good luck (treated seriously)…which perhaps surprised me in the sense that I myself did not expect to find these familiar ‘irrational’ motifs in their culture! These motifs came across as "natural" rather than something unnatural to me simply because my worldview already includes these objects... makes me wonder as I said how a worldview that does not include these objects in a practical sense but simply views them as ‘irrational concepts’ would engage with these same scenes or stories. Interesting line of thought…

posted by Sylvia D'souza at 9:39 pm 0 comments
 
I argued with an idiot today. I swear to myself every day to not entangle myself in arguments with random strangers online but in spite of my best intentions to steer clear I seem to get caught up in it. Who qualifies as an idiot? I think 1. Someone who attacks the arguer instead of their argument. 2. Someone who is not interested in pursuing the merits of an argument or opposing the merits with a counter-argument of their own but simply wants to disparage the argument 3. Someone whose basic assumptions are so weak or flawed that though they think they have put up an argument, what they have put up could be gobbledygook for all the sense it makes in relation to the argument 4. Someone who is so full of themselves that they see everything from their own point of view instead of looking at things from the opposite perspective offered to them 5. Someone who speaks a different language almost so that no matter what you say, they say something that cannot be a logical response to what you said at least in the same language. 6. Someone who automatically assumes something is incorrect because it doesn’t square with their views instead of trying to look for nuance or understand the details. There are many other items that could go on this list overlapping each other but you get the drift…

I am coming to the conclusion that it may be best to not offer my views/opinions/thoughts at all where there is no guarantee what sort of person may start engaging with me. It’s not that I can’t defend my stance, but is it worth my time or energy or effort or patience or emotions? At one time in my life I would have thought it was worth it because I could learn something in the process but now… these resources seem finite and precious. I believe learning can happen in much more ideal conditions, which don’t require, as they say, wrestling in the mud with a pig. And the pig enjoys it…

posted by Sylvia D'souza at 1:31 am 0 comments
Sunday, July 19, 2020
 
Ever since I posted the parable of the talents (a few posts down) I have been thinking about picking up the thread where I left off. A lot of things bubble in my head but nothing concrete rises to the surface. On the face of it, even if we take "talents" to mean actual talent or gift, it seems a bit odd that God would be concerned about, let alone reward or punish, people based on whether they make the best use of it or whether they squander it. It is difficult to wrap one's head around this I guess because we usually think about God in the context of charity or mercy or love or... things that are one might say more heart than head.

If one thinks about it, the parable seems to suggest that God has put us on this earth with different capabilities or abilities or talents or gifts, and He has sort of made us responsible in a "free will" sense to fulfil the promise of these talents/gifts. He has perhaps not made it any easier for us to realise or manifest these talents but therein lies our challenge or our test. The more we try to meet this test the more likely we are to succeed but there are those who do not recognise their talent (whatever it may be) or their responsibility toward realising it. One can't say why that comes to be or why they do not hear their "calling" so to speak but then again that is what "free will" would mean. If God had himself planned everything out to the nth detail we would not be responsible at all and no question of test or reward or punishment would arise. This is perhaps best captured in the phrase, "God helps those who help themselves".

When I made the decision to quit career and country to pursue something that I felt my heart was in, I had many misgivings. And yet there was this conviction too that I was taking a path that felt destined to me, for me. That path has not been easy so far, and from my current vantage point I find it very difficult to tell how I will find my way forward. And yet, there is something in me that feels as if there is nothing better I can do with my life than to maximise the potential that God has invested in me. In an ideal world, God would reward me. But even if He doesn't, the failure seems worth taking.

The following poem by Milton (who is blind) speaks to the parable of the talents...I find it even more inspiring now...
 
On His Blindness   
WHEN I consider how my light is spent 
  Ere half my days in this dark world and wide, 
  And that one Talent which is death to hide 
  Lodged with me useless, though my soul more bent 
To serve therewith my Maker, and present          
  My true account, lest He returning chide, 
  “Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?” 
  I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent 
That murmur, soon replies, “God doth not need 
  Either man’s work or his own gifts. Who best          
  Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state 
Is kingly: thousands at his bidding speed, 
  And post o’er land and ocean without rest; 
  They also serve who only stand and wait.”

posted by Sylvia D'souza at 5:50 am 0 comments
Wednesday, July 15, 2020
 
Why do we experience the feeling of 'guilt' or what triggers the sensation, if you will, of guilt? I observe that I have this feeling of guilt when I engage in reading when I ought to be writing, in other words, procrastinating. The reading I do may be related to my writing work so it's not as if I am completely shirking my work but there's still this sense of guilt. I have been wondering if it relates to the fact that reading gives me pleasure and I am engaging in what gives me pleasure instead of doing what can be termed my duty, that is, my work.

This makes ponder: how is pleasure related to guilt? If you think about pretty much anything that gives you pleasure, say food or entertainment, there seems to be a scope for guilt embedded into the experience; it could be having certain types of food or too much of it or watching too much television or watching nonsensical stuff in terms of these two examples. The items themselves be it food or entertainment, are not inherently bad and are associated with pleasure rather than anything bad, but they have the possibility of turning into what’s ‘bad for you’ and in that context, ‘guilt’.

I find it interesting to think that because anything that gives us pleasure can also more often than not lead to a sense of guilt, could it be that we start feeling a sense of guilt when we are merely experiencing pleasure, even when we haven’t done anything to be guilty of? I mean, sometimes when I am reading and taking pleasure in it, I have absolutely no reason to feel guilty because it’s legitimate time off from work or it could be that I have to read that piece before I work, but guilt steals upon my consciousness almost unconsciously. I recognise it to be an irrational feeling but I can’t deny its presence. Also, if I eat a piece of cake and it’s not as if I am overindulging in it… I feel guilt mixed with the pleasure of it. What I am getting at is that pleasure is becoming almost a signal of sorts for guilt whether there is cause for guilt or not…and in that sense signalling to me or making me think about the rightness of my actions!

It could be said that the guilt is meant to keep our desires in control, in that, not to overeat or overdo or simply exercise circumspection/moderation where pleasure is involved, because if we didn’t have this sort of guilt response there would be nothing to stop us from overindulging in pleasure or harming ourselves in the process. In this sense, it could even be called an emotional moral compass of sorts—as opposed to a cognitive one?—though one could argue that it’s not really possible to analytically separate the emotional and the cognitive if we were to look at how they meet in the concept called “conscience”?

It seems to me that any moral compass especially one with an emotional basis has to be calibrated to a cultural setting and cannot be universal so to speak. And even within a culture it’s not as if everyone is equipped to or trained to calibrate their compass in the same way. If that were the case we would have model cultures with only upright citizens...which obviously isn’t the case.

posted by Sylvia D'souza at 7:28 pm 0 comments
Tuesday, July 14, 2020
 
Dear readers, after almost 4 years in the UK, I had my first visit to a doctor today. You know I avoid the medical world like the plague, which is ironic to say the least, but now that we are in the middle of a plague I should be going to the doctor’s, well, that’s like the icing on the irony cake! ;) I used to joke when this corona business started that the one place I won’t want to be visiting is the doctor’s; of course, I never expected to visit it then. I guess God took this as a personal challenge! :( As they say, never say never.

A few months ago I had written about my bad case of acne. The bad case has only gotten worse and you might be forgiven for thinking it’s a minor issue what with life and death problems around us… that’s what I thought too when it started… but having given it almost six months now I realised that it was not a light problem after all. It was affecting me mentally and emotionally…just looking at my face which I couldn’t exactly avoid looking at if I had to apply the creams and stuff… was giving me anxiety and stress. And then it’s said that stress exacerbates acne…so all in all I was caught in a vicious circle not to mention my fear and dread of going to a doctor, on top of that dread of figuring out how the medical world functions here, on top of that fear of the virus doing the rounds in all sorts of places… you get the picture? How was I not supposed to be anxious and stressed is the question!

Finally, I took courage in my rather trembling hands, and decided to get the ball rolling to meet a doctor. I say ball rolling because I never expected it to be as easy as turning up at the doctor’s. Something told me this would be something long drawn out and it was. Having not visited a doctor in so many years I was apparently deactivated on the system… not to go into all the details but it all culminated in me eventually seeing a doc today.

I don’t know if it’s a difference between doctors here and doctors in India or maybe it’s just that doctors in general don’t realise the effect their words have on patients. My dear readers may remember the episode of my foot injury some years ago and how the doctor said I might have had to amputate my foot if I hadn’t visited the hospital when I did (you understand why I avoid doctors/hospitals/so on?). I obviously didn’t expect to hear any chilling pronouncements this time what with the problem being my acne and all, but had I gone in there with a heart palpitation I wouldn’t have heard anything worse to make it beat faster I’m guessing. Suffice to say I have started with a very low risk treatment of a topical cream but if this doesn’t help matters then the next level treatments will progressively increase in risk :( I mean, I don’t understand what I am supposed to say to this…? Fix my cheeks and let what happens to my liver …?
All in all though, I am glad I visited today. I am back in one piece and just the thought that I am following a doctor’s advice makes me feel that I am on the way to getting fixed. Though I am still a little miffed about the advice… I was told not to put any moisturiser or anything at all on my face. I asked, how was I supposed to care for my face then? The response, how has caring helped your face? I couldn’t deny the logic of it, could I? :(

posted by Sylvia D'souza at 6:17 am 0 comments
Saturday, July 11, 2020
 
The Parable of the Talents

“For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away.
He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here, I have made five talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here, I have made two talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’
He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’ But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure how to interpret this parable from the Bible. I find it intriguing to say the least. I vaguely remember listening to this parable ‘of the talents’ at Sunday School as a kid but couldn’t remember what it was about. Even after reading it now I feel like I am reading it for the first time but that’s not surprising because I am viewing it through frames of knowledge that make it appear almost new and something peculiar even. Why would God reward people who made good use of the money and punish someone who didn’t make any use of it? What virtue is exhibited in maximising interest or generating more profit out of the principal? Why would God say that those who have will be given more and from those who don’t have will be taken? The word ‘talent’ of course must be interpreted as talent in the general sense or innate gift and not money but still…
I need to sleep on this a bit more… food for another blog!

posted by Sylvia D'souza at 5:13 am 0 comments
Monday, July 06, 2020
 
As usual a random thought caught hold of me today. I wondered why when I was much younger I was intent on sorting out my emotional life; it is pretty clear to me now that my intellectual life is where it's at for me, so why? Did I consider my emotional life to be more important when I was younger? What made me want to prioritise it then? The answer came to me in an analogy.

I think even when I was very young I was a fan of ideas and ideals. I thought of emotions and the life of emotions as presenting something of an Achilles' heel for me. My personality nor my interests lend toward living out the emotional life that most humans especially the female kind take for granted almost from the cradle onwards. But there are no alternative lives equally valid or granted by society. So I guess I thought that I would first fix my Achilles’ heel, and having done so, I would be free to pursue the life of my dreams. Pursue the life of the mind so to speak. Naively, I never questioned if an emotional life would be compatible with an intellectual life, but what alternative did one have?

The emotional life didn’t materialise. But now I realise that the Achilles’ heel wasn’t there to be fixed or taken care of but to signal to me that the life of my choosing carried this inherent burden. That I would have to live with it. If it could have been simply dealt with, it would not have been an Achilles’ heel. Now that I have fully embraced the intellectual life I realise that the Achilles’ heel, an externalisation of my internal nature, is something I could never have cut off as if it was an extra limb. The removing of it would have caused more pain than the living with it because I wouldn’t be fulfilling the destiny that the heel brought to its owner… it is not a smooth destiny but there is peace and acceptance in it… and who knows… emotional fulfilment may even find its way where there are these things…

posted by Sylvia D'souza at 4:33 am 0 comments
HOME