What I knew about dreams was wrong!

Yes and it's not very easy to interpret dreams

Dreams come not because you have suppressed an emotion.

 I mean, they do But there is always a portion in your dream which got automatically suppressed because you never had the language to express it.

 You did not want to suppress it but you never got a chance to express it, so, unconsciously it got suppressed.

Example: You will not dream of peeing if you have suppressed your pee forcefully knowing that you need to pee.

But you will get that dream, when you are submerged in a work you like and your body automatically suppresses it without you knowing about it that it is suppressed.

 In a nutshell, dreams are not the result of active suppression of feelings. 

[ in fact, active suppression of feelings only leads to bad mental health issues] 

But, the latent suppression of feelings.

ONLY A TRUE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION CAN MAKE YOU A HEALTHY ATHEIST

 Again, A dialectical statement where I have used Hegelian dialectics to make a contradictory fact of life. What do I mean by this? It is pretty simple really. The statement is very self-evident. Many often people who are Atheist say this that If a child is not given any religious instruction in the childhood, he will reject all religions when he turns 18. I disagree with the statement. Here are all my assertions. And like my habit, I will try to state all my assertions in a sermonic fashion and then if I felt like writing more, give a logic to justify my claims. 

1. What do I mean by a true religious education? A true religious education should teach the disciple a vision of positivist, rationalist and most importantly hopeful sight. It could begin from a fixed religious text, a guru and a fixed set of rituals, but it should after a point, transcend beyond these categorical thinking to include all possibilities and even the ultimate hypothesis should be rejected, i.e. Accept the teachings of the religion even without the ontological presence of God. Something which Upanishads and Buddha intend to do. What Lao Tzu wants to teach you! What Zen masters kept saying through silence. A true religious education will liberate the individual like anything. In GK Chesterton's thesis of Christian Atheism, we find the hint for such a religion. I do not mean only Christianity is such religion. Any religion can be that. The only requirement is it should be philosophically sound enough to be able to merge the ultimate duality of religion, that is the duality between Atheism and Theism. 

2. What should be the goal of a true religious education? I think I covered that there itself. The goal of a true religious education should be an amalgamation of formal education and psychological therapy for life. 

3. Who is a healthy atheist? A healthy atheist is someone comfortable with his own atheism. He does not get deterred when life and its harshness strike and he faces trauma and fear of death. He is not insecure about his atheism. Hence, he does not go preach anywhere to anyone that there is no god. He is not a preacher. He is even open to the possibility of complete uncertainty and chaos. He may also be open to be someday completely proven wrong and God existing. He is Buddha. He knows even if there is God, this does not solve anything. He does not see God as an essentialist category. He is not utilitarian about God. He does not need God to derive his Moral values. He knows if there is a God, it only shows that there are still heights for human endeavor to achieve. 

4. Why this paradox? This paradox exists because the world is suffering. Any upbringing which is mentally stressful and not assuring makes the child vulnerable for a lifetime. It has pure psychological basis. A five-year-old need not know that there is no God. It is very harsh a truth for him. A borderline trauma. But he should be nurtured to have a healthy relationship with this fact that there is no God. Or at least, this that there is a high probability that there is no big other or ultimate truth of life. A mentally healthy person is one who can be a healthy atheist. An unhealthy person can be of any extremes, Over-religious, borderline Schizophrenic to Radical atheist, intolerant to religious people, highly anxious with the presence of religion in public life. 

I think I have made myself clear. Over the years, my relationship with this fact has grown better. There is no god. But I am not too emotional about it now. I do not stress on rational thinking and logical reasoning to give the ultimate truth of life. I know it cannot. Because there may not be one at the first place. I am comfortable with the fact that some people are very unhealthy mentally about their relationship with God. There are fanatics, emotional, hyper religious, communal and so many other retarded people. I just hope our education system can adopt a true religious education which is an amalgamation of formal education and psychological therapy. A classroom experience should be like a therapy session combined with formal education. 

HEGELIAN DIALECTICS: THE WAY GOD ARGUES

 GWF Hegal, the state philosopher, the philosopher of idealism, the philosopher of Absolute Idea, the Philosopher, who idea of state rationality gives rise to a different set of ethics and is a basis to all hitherto materialisms coming after him. And still, we are going to talk about his ultimate contribution to mankind and philosophy, his Dialectics. 

Why Dialectics is my favorite of all kinds of philosophies? It is not dialectical materialism although I call myself a Marxist. It is not any spiritual thought but a very mute tool of argument, Hegelian Dialectics. Why Dialectics?

Dialectics is not just a way of argument. It is a way to see the world working and progressing. How does a river flow? By means of Dialectics I claim. How does we grow from childhood to adults? How does political systems work? Dialectics, I claim. That too, Hegelian one. 

What is Special about Hegelian dialectics? It is not just a series of Thesis, Anti-thesis and Synthesis. It is a series of contradictions in which the world progresses. It is inherent in the seed to become a tree, even though we know, A seed is not a tree. In fact, they are opposites, Contradictory to each other. Still, A seed grows into a tree. It is in the destruction of the seed is the success of the birth of tree. In other words, A failure of being leads to a success of being. You see! Here, it starts becoming interesting. 

The thesis evolves into its own anti-thesis. The thesis is said to Sublate into its own anti-thesis. This means Any thesis has its own self-negating characteristic. This sublation is not the only process that is going on. There is something called abrogation also at play here. This means as the thesis sublates to create anti-thesis out of it, it, at the same time, within itself, the thesis seems to excrete itself out of meaning. For example: The seed loses its seed-ness in order to sublate itself into a new form called the tree. By this very process, it liberates its own meaning. The anti-thesis starts to gain meaning. Isn't the way God must have reasoned in order to make this world?  I too, believe that. 

Women have a stake in Patriarchy.

What is the biggest huddle in the demolition of Patriarchal system and making a feminine world order? I claim a big assertion, "Women have a stake in Patriarchy and hence, No-true heartedly fight against the masculine world order could have been started". Women have compromised even in their biggest fight against Masculine world order. Women have failed women. They are reform based. They lack vision of revolution. They lack revolutionary consciousness. All this might sound bizarre and means nothing if I cannot prove this. But, let me state all my assertions. Women try to achieve masculinity and a Masculine freedom hence the claim to power by women is intrinsically masculine. They are bound to fail. Men always had boons of patriarchy and women were oppressed but even within women, The claim to masculine power has always been there. A mother-in-law and Daughter in law dynamic. Where does a mother-in-law derive power in the family setup of patriarchy. It is, indeed, a masculine claim to power. Hence, at times, Women become the flagbearers of patriarchy. This is not just a traditional patriarchal family case. In the wake of modernity and modern feminism even, this is the case. Women, especially working women, today have a claim to power which is intrinsically masculine. I come to my final assertion, A feminist revolution cannot mean just giving rights to women or doing gender-based reforms or shifting to create a balance of power between a man and a woman. it should mean creating a feminine world order. An order entirely different from what men have made over a period of 10000 years. A fundamental change to the core. Snatching patriarchy from the hearts of psyches of men and women, creating men comfortable with their feminine side and women embracing their feminine side more. Masculinity to its core, should be transformed to a healthy non-self-negating trait of every human being. 

All the highlighted phrases demand explanation which I will give later on. 

SELF-AWARENESS WILL BE THE AXIS TO POWER IN COMING DAYS

Let's go back to 1915. A leader to be and a Messiah of South Africa, The Maverick Barrister, later to be known as, Gandhi ji and that time, Mohandas K. Gandhi. Although he was not that big in 1915. Before him is a strong competition and a sort of legacy in the form of Tilak, Gokhale and other people. But within 10 years, what makes this individual a sort of a mahatma. I believe it was a claim to power through Moral Conscience. Morality was his ultimate claim to power. His arguments rely on Morality. Let's analyze this. 

When we say Morality, it is for me nothing but a stance to a goodness, a claim that this is good, and this should be done. This starts a logical and human level ideological struggle to what will eventually be called "right". Whenever a new leader comes up with his version of morality, he challenges the older order of right vs wrong, and he wants everyone to agree to him. There is nothing universal about morality although it might appear that way. Empathy, a value which guides in formation of a collective morality of a society is somewhat skewed in the Favour of the oppressed because in one way or the other, human, in his most sane tendencies, finds himself helpless, and wants help. Everyone needs help in times of helplessness, and this makes people empathetic to towards the other. There are some, who can harness this form of collective energy of empathy by giving an alternate model of morality from time to time and we call them leaders. I would like to think of Gandhiji as a Maverick in that sense that he could convince his claim to power to everyone who was a leader before and after him. This makes him a leader of the highest order. 

But I do believe, this morality, as a claim to power is declining and dissipating in the age of skepticism and cynicism that we live in. To quote a very brilliant, and symptomatic author of our times, which will also be a case in point, Manu Joseph, "Be very cautious with the person who is always there to help people without any benefits for in the whole process, he might be the alone there to be benefitted." This is the ultimate spirit of cynicism of today's generation. We have got far more heroes and revolutionaries that have failed us. So, it seems an utmost responsibility of an average man and an average woman today to judge everyone who claims to be a leader. Whether or not revolution comes, our generation is highly skeptical about leaders. But every generation has a weak point. I have realized that this generation's weak point is self-awareness. You might hear people saying shit like "Do not judge me, I know what I am doing but..." and then they will go on to explain the excuse they are facing for why they will have to do something they know is wrong. This self-aware card seems to be a pass for everyone these days. A self-aware cringe is no longer cringe anymore; it is an irony. So, we come to the ultimate proposition, "People, in the coming days, will like to elect a leader who can take extreme steps and is ready to get away with it by accepting it as his fault." People might even forgive a Hitler today, if he, in a self-aware way, accepts that he has done a genocide. This leads us to the extra provocative version of my proposition," No genocide without Self-awareness in future." and "A self-aware Hitler is considered a Gandhi in this generation". Which leads me to my final proposition, "Morality will lose its status of being the ultimate claim to power because morality of people will be judged more too often in this generation". A leader, in future days, will not be someone who is moral but someone who will be immoral with a self-aware stance. Or even worse, an amoral person, lacking any moral sense, but just faking a self-awareness which will create an illusion in minds of people that he knows what he is doing. This blind faith on self-awareness will become the ultimate opium of masses in coming days. It will become the axis to power in coming days. 

21-12-2023 (I am One and I intend to be many)

 Dips of depression leaves you no choice but to not be able to write anything. Three days passed by, and I did not write anything. But here I am, again to write something. Today I am thinking of writing about biographies. The reader of a biography thinks he knows the person better now. But, thinking about it, I do not think this is true at all. In an earlier blog, I created a concept of how a word travels from its etymology to become just a mute symbol with, history ascribes on it a meaning. I think, this happens to a person when he dies. The complex search of meaning that drives the person to do what he does for the whole life. He changes world views, in response to dilemmas of life. This is often seen as contradictions in the personalities of people apparent to the reader reading about them. But these contradictions appear over the period of time and sometime simultaneously coexists within the person. A person like me, A swift Machiavellian, cunning piece of a person, am already so disjointed inside. We, as humans, especially people, who have times to analyze their lives, find that we are fundamentally broken pieces of personalities. Osho might call me an individual, which is the proper way of existing whereas for the world, I am a contradiction which will make me an ideal subject to do a hermeneutics study for a political science researcher. Osho says that the contradiction appears because we see everyone through a lens of personality. An eternal obligation to appear as a single personality is but a mental shortcoming of the human mind is what he means. We, human beings, boast of intelligence but our intelligence is too limited in some sense. We can find contradictions because our minds cannot comprehend the coexistence of opposites. A tree grows from its own opposite, i.e. a seed. A seed starts dying the moment a tree starts growing. Days and nights do not occur one after another. One grows into the other. The stars and the moon start to celebrate the night, the moment the sun becomes a little less bright. This coexistence of Light and darkness is intrinsic to the nature of a human. Being human is being logically incomprehensible. A biographer is always going to be confused. he knows, what people will tell him, people will tell him what they know, they might even lie. In my case, I already feel sad for my biographer because The people who he will contact will end up lying since they do not know shit about me. I have told them all kind of lies about my family, my friends, my relationships and most of all my traumas. I had a pretty simple life, nothing happening. But my fundamentally Narcissistic desire for me to be happening in all aspects of my life made me create stories. Some of my closest friends might even know this. I will not reveal who, let my biographer struggle a bit. How self-centered one has to be in order to think of having a biographer at the age of 24, I say yes! But I am a self-aware one! I know I have these tendencies, which makes me afraid of myself. But I am more afraid of my self-awareness sabotaging me from the greatness i am destined to achieve. Yes! I am this obsessed. The future generations will have never been able to comprehend how a great person, a larger-than-life person thinks. They see great people with the lens of a Biographer which is intrinsically flawed. Let me myself hint you and leave you a note on how a great person thinks. Today, I am not great but once I get hold of power, I will show what can I do. I will not shy away from power. This will be my tribute to the giants who inspire me, Atal ji, Gandhi ji, Bhagat Singh and most of all Baba Saheb. This variety of chunk! yes! In my opinion, greatness does not have a single political wing. I get inspired by all these people because these people outgrow the capabilities of a person which I also intend to do. That is what I think is the aim of human existence. Upanishads say this loud and clear, "Eko aham Bahushyamah!" or I am one and I want to be many! Yes! I have rivalries and some serious hatred towards some specific people, and I am not shy about it. One day, when I get hold of power, the days after that day will mark as the end of these people. I will make a living hell out of the lives of these people. I will leave this job as well to my biographer to search who are these people. People who know me, will report you about a Messiah of a person that they saw in me but This document will be able to challenge all the legends about me in future where I am myself writing what a hell of a passionate and ambitious person I am and how much hate is there in me. The world has harnessed the power of hate from time to time. I intend to harness the same. The world is going to witness another larger-than-life personality in coming 60 years only with one difference :- This time, The person is self-aware and has announced it beforehand.  

18-12-2023

 It is very unusual for me to start writing blogs like diary entries. About 12 hours in a day, when I study, I get numerous ideas that I find worth writing, but the moment when I started writing it today, I am feeling a lack. Let this be reminder blog for me to write down my thoughts here so that I may expand it later at night. 

THANKS 

WHY INDIAN LIBERAL IS A LIBERAL FALLACY ITSELF? AND THE REAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROLETARIAT OF THE COUNTRY.

Anyone with a slight progressive or center to left thought today is labelled in India as a liberal. People with bourgeois upbringing and background, especially those who are not well read but want to be portrayed as educated or bourgeois people who were malnutritional enough to not be able to grow a pair of balls against their fellow rich or even their own self are a broad category called liberal. 

A liberal today is not a supporter of laissez-faire economy or pure scientific optimist, but a sceptic who does not know anything, hence does not like anything. The fallacy of being a liberal in India is that a wide mass of population that we call Middle class is without a thinking mind and that leaves them an easy prey for the fundamentalist Hindu Identity. Not to mention, it is the very background of this unaware liberalism on which such fundamentalist ideas can take their stance. 

This specter of an ignorant liberal is very common in university campuses in form of faculties, Students etc. An easy prey for the right-wing groups, they show no plan at all to fight them hence giving a political delusion that only right wing is the ultimate alternative. 

Until, this mass hysteria is curbed, the left, The actual Communists are keeping their slumber intact either in their silos of their party offices, University campuses or working in lowest of rungs hiding their face in the ground because of their fear of power. In my humblest of opinion, It is safe to say that Communist parties of this country do not represent the real left of this country or the workers of this country. The left has been completely denigrated to the masses. This is because there is an inherent contradiction in the formation of any communist party in theory itself. 

We see, whenever a communist party comes in power in any country, it comes in power because it represents a big chunk of the population, the proletariat of the country. Their whole idea remains to change the control on the means of production from the petty bourgeois to the proletariat. But the nature of India proletariat remains very diverse and very dynamic and hence not graspable by the Communist parties. But then who represents the proletariat in its whole Genuity in India? 

The real proletariat of this country, from life immemorial, has been represented by the Teacher community of the country. As old as we see in Ancient India, whether it is Chanakya or Shankaracharya or Buddha, these are teachers of spirituality to politics that guide the country. The Indian Sanyasi community has been able to create a learning atmosphere (excluding the exception of caste restrictions) which they call the Guru-Shishya Parampara. The country always has a post of a teacher, which has been a political post. Be it, Rajgurus in Indian Autocratic systems, or be it in Modern times, say Mahatma Gandhi. Why did Mahatma Gandhi not become the prime minister of this country? Because, of the Indian psyche somehow conceives a leader without formal powerful position yet having control. That is of a philosopher or a teacher or a guide. Currently, at the rise of Communication technology and edtech companies, the rise of some giant coaching teachers is very easily visible. Vikas Divyakrti, Awadh Ojha, Khan sir are the names that even non-students know today. Why they are so visible to the Indian people? This country has a knowledge hunger, in the form of religious beliefs, spiritual quests, it is often expressed and hence wasted. The reality of this knowledge hunger is that it is to be used in this direction only. This democratization of knowledge brought by capitalism only can lead to its own end. It will be the ultimate bootstrap. The snake eating its own tail. But for this, the teachers of this stature should actually realize their potential and build something. Be the Chanakya and build the Chandragupta they always imagined and let the welfare state be established. So, Perhaps, again in history, The history is demanding a Chanakya first. Because Chandragupta will follow the lead.