PAHLI BHIKSHA

I was sitting there with a man who I was with some 15 years ago. But this man looked different. This man looked no longer a man even. He looks like, I do not know, as much a man as a woman. He seems so abnormal yet so secure. 

Sipping a sip of coffee, he says, "How is it?" "What?" 

"Me!", she gets surprised. But he did not say that. She was dreaming. 

"Of course, the coffee I made for you! I remember you used to like it" He said. 

Yes, I used to. Things have changed. 

"Yes they always do! in fact there are no things as such, only changes." 

Profound. He was always this profound. Good with words. Yet a defective piece. He used to twist it by saying he is not a defective piece. But he has a defective peace. He wants to mend his inner peace. Now he looks much more sorted. He is well built. His eyes do not run no more. His presence is serene. His voice seems calm. He laughs, he smiles, he becomes excited. All this happens and still it seems his eyes does not move. He is fixated to peace. Or am I fixated to him? She keeps thinking. 

"So, how is life? Already a big shot in a big company?" He asked her. 

Yes. I am a CEO now in the famous car company. 

Nice! you were always meant for something big. Ambitious woman, always competing. I like that about you. 

I looked at him. He was chuckling. I wanted to see some pain in his eyes. Some dimming of light. Something that was opposite to this what I was seeing. How is he so joyful? So happy on his ex-girlfriend's success? Is he still wishing that something could happen between us? I cannot date a loser like him. He was once ambitious. Now he seems like a garbage. He runs a coffee shop in this hill station. What? No big thing in research, no big name in leadership, all those brags that I used to listen for hours where he used to just show off his plans to me how he is going to transform the world. Where did they go? Is he just a mediocre loser? Did he just lose everything for me? A slight chuckle came and went in her eyes. 

He asked, "You overthink nowadays? This was my bad habit. Why you opted for this job?" he laughed. 

No, I usually am a very focused person in my life. I meditate, I read books, I go to gym. I enjoy life go to parties, bars etc. I do not overthink. It is just today. 

"Oh! So this is a gift for me specially, thank you so much!" He replied and chuckled. He has always been charming. 

"So you are retired already? Coffee shop and all! these were your retirement plans, weren't they?" She asked. 

Yes, I mean, he hesitated then said, "I completed my PhD, went to do policymaking. Still am active in there. I am a part of Government's executive. But, then, Delhi does not suit me. I wanted no stress. And then I asked my superiors, will it be wise to work from home? And they agreed. So, I made a home in this hill station and then, I work from home!" 

"Damn! I almost shouted, Policymaker. You are a politician? Wait, I never heard your name in the news." 

"No! silly, Executive is different. I work at the backend. Those are part of parliament and are legislatures. I am sort of a civil servant." 

I felt silly. His calling me silly made me nostalgic. I remembered all those late-night teachings of his. He meticulously teaching me Physics, thermodynamics and relativity and I, trying to distract him. I was feeling like I am again a little girl of 19. How does he do it? 

How does he make you what he wants you to be. He does not persuade to behave. He just is and then you start to change according to him. I felt angry. I do not want to be his play doll. I resented. 

"I am not silly!" 

He looked at me with those eyes. I remember those eyes. But the expression is not that of sorry this time. He is a much confident man now. He looked at me. Just smiled. And ignored whatever I said. 

I felt bad. Then, I asked, so, happy? 

He looked at me like a mirror does to me every morning. As if asking, ask yourself. And I said, Sorry, wrong question. You look happy. 

He asked, "But you do not. What happened? Anything I can help you with?" 

And I looked him in the eye, wanting to search a taunt, but it was not a taunt. He has asked in just a childlike innocence that he carries. 

I felt like crying. I was not sad. I was not happy either. I had life that most people have. A package. Some happiness, some sorrow, some regrets, some disgust. But, this is his quality. He is literally a walking real time therapy. He makes people comfortable with crying. I do not want to cry. I never wanted to cry in my life. I wanted to be strong. But, with him, I have cried a lot. He makes me cry every time. As if, he does it on purpose. But he never made me cry by saying something nasty. It is always these things, these mushy, little, emotional BS. 

But, I caught myself. I cannot fall no more. Now I get it, he is doing it on purpose. He wants me back. After all this time? He is doing it on purpose. How cunning. How sharp. How manipulative. But no, I am not a teenager now. I will not be trapped in his words. 

I said, "Nope! all is good!" But why did you want to have coffee with me? After so long? 

He said, "I saw you there at the museum. I thought, it might be good opportunity to catch up! since I have started living in this deranged place, People that I meet are mostly strangers, even friends come as tourists, asking for advice on cheap hotels. So, when I saw you, I thought, after so long, finally a friend as a friend. No stranger-ship." 

"Stranger-ship?" I laughed. "Is that a word?" 

He nervously scratched his head. I mean there should be. Strangers meeting as strangers and living together like strangers. Doesn't this form the most comprehensive form of relationship? Most democratic also. 

We are all strangers to each other. And we all want to erase this eerie feeling as soon as possible. Won't it be easier if we accept each other as strangers? Do not try to familiarize. Just acceptance as strangers. 

I am not sure I followed. But I had no time to argue. So, I said, "Sure!" Again, he started giving Gyan. Now that I think about it, what made me fall for this guy? I find myself with no answers. He is basically a nerd. 

But the Nerd got good muscles baby! that's for sure. 

So, Dating anyone? I asked, wishing he will choke on his coffee.

"Currently you!" He was ready. 

I choked. What? 

He laughed. He caught me. tried choking me, jokes on you. This is the fact, right? I am currently having coffee with you. Other than that. Nope. 

"Why not?" 

He said, "Which brings me to the matter at hand!" 

He said, "See, I cannot date now. I am a monk. A Buddhist monk." And then he revealed the Chanting Mala of beads beneath his shirt. He said, "Actually, this is a custom, The first Bhiksha, or begging, should happen from the person who the monk is most attached. So, when I saw you, I thought, OK! May be I found you at the right time. I Wish to get forgiveness from you. I am leaving this world of Maar. And entering the world of Nirvana. I wish to be liberated. I wish to have you forgive me. I know, you loved me once. And becoming a monk is equivalent to dying. Since you once loved me, you had a say on my body, and my mind. Please, Give me my forgiveness!" 

What? All this for this? 

Coffee, date, all for this? And what? A monk? What? I do not get it. 

What is he saying? Is he serious right now? 

I felt cheated. I felt like someone broke a promise with me. But no promise has been broken. No love pact was made. Even once, I had told him that I never loved him. But then why this feeling. I felt like crying. 

I looked at him. He was looking for his forgiveness. 

No! first answer my questions. 

Then why this job? This coffee shop? This physique? What are you doing? Is this monkhood? Do you think I am a fool? 

Nope! I do not think that. 

But you surely did not understand life. "On its own sake" is life. 

Finish your coffee. And ask me as much questions you want. I will answer. But then, give me my forgiveness. Is it alright? 

Ok! I was helpless. 

LIFE IS NON-SERIOUS BUT NOT DISHONEST!

More often than not, we see, that truth manifests itself in a structural form. A truth that bestows itself on us through some Philosopher, or some guru, often accumulates itself in an organized way. Then, we witness a split between the manifestation of truth and the truth itself. 

Mostly, it is the manifestation that is most easily corrupted by lies and dishonesty, whereas the abstract nature of the truth keeps it safe, however the same nature is responsible for the manifest corruption. Say, In Hinduism, Caste and its Philosophy. 

Caste is an attempt to organize a society and its division of labor. In Idea, that is, in abstraction, it begins with the hypothesis of people, in a way opting for their castes by their specific skill sets and action. In essence, this is what I am calling the Truth. That part of the philosophy that offers freedom. At least offers, whether it necessarily intends to do so, is a question we need to inquire further. Were the makers of caste intending to liberate men or to further enslave them? 

The truth of caste Philosophy seems to be liberating. To formulate a law which provides a nomenclature to the Early man to which he can identify and work upon it. Actually, the effect of giving a name to a concept is giving it already a manifestation. But then the manifestation becomes a compulsion. The idea should have preceded the liberation but the necessity to liberate becomes the driving force of implementation of the idea. 

This is the dark fate of all ideas of human history. It has fallen in hands of Bodhisattva complex. Some people who had this feeling that they are the saviors of the world and the order-making is their responsibility. 

Caste in its manifestation, works like a policy of segregation. And its role does not seem to be liberating by providing a name to the skill rather, it enslaves the man of occupying a particular skill due to being in one caste. 

Why did this transition happen? Why Manifestation of truth changes the content of truth. I claim, this is done for pragmatic reasons, as they say. Pragmatism is the world's oldest ideological dogma. 

Pragmatism is when in implementing your idea, you, in appearance, try to adapt to the world's specific needs and try to fit your idea in the needs of the world order, often the hegemonic discourse, and then deem it as the "Only practical solution". 

What I mean to say is, the one who changed the Policy of Caste segregation from action to birth, was a pragmatist with a Saviour complex or Bodhisattva complex. 

The interesting encounter happens when these pragmatists, today being in the majority of this world, Machiavellian as they are, meet people who are "By the book" or as they derogatively use, "Idealists". 

They call Idealists as "Traditionally dogmatic". What an interesting irony. Ironical is this that they dare not call themselves as the perverts. People who pervert the ideas of truth and manifest it to suit their needs. Practicality took the mask of truth and mimicked truth. But it never was, it never has been, it never will be. 

Truth and its manifestation suffer a split. Split because someone thought that Implementing truth all at once will take all their privileges. That's why they perverted it. 

This happened with women. Women should be free so far as women of my own house remain in my control, says the new age patriarch.

"But you don't understand, Vibhat! The society is bad! Women are not safe! They need to be in control, in order to be safe!" Says the Patriarch conservative. 

I dare say, "yes! Women are unsafe because of you! They need to be taught to be free, not taught how to be in control!" 

The repressed women, when rises and kills the man, through ruining his mental health, or killing him and putting him in containers, often in news nowadays, or alimonies, then man cries. I am oppressed. 

Yes, you are! Because you could have taken a stand for your sister's good education, your mother's against your father's ill treatment, your wife being mistreated by your own mother. But you chose silence. Because Silence was pragmatic. 

Remember, Beware of "pragmatism". It is the worst form of ideology possible. Pragmatism is the new way ego wants to protect itself. 

But maybe you know this, you already know that Your practicality and your pragmatism is just an attempt to protect the ego. And you are no spiritual, you just want your ego's welfare. You are on your ego's side. You are dishonest. 

And Dishonesty, Oh God forbid, is mankind's biggest enemy till date. It is the oldest, probably older than Pragmatism, possible crime and ideological crime. A dishonest is a cold-blooded murderer of soul. A dishonest is the man who puts poison in his own father's tea. A dishonest is like a man who rapes his own wife. Dishonesty is man's attempt to abetment to suicide of his own soul. A dishonest man forces his own soul to commit suicide. And then lives like a Zombie his whole life. 

The message of spirituality seems to be Cryptic here. Do not be serious says, Osho, but that is again mistaken as Do not take morality seriously, you are free to be Charvakians. Nope! Rules of life are to be taken seriously. Because there it is not seriousness, it is honesty, sheer honesty. Do not take yourself seriously, your desires and your ego, these do not matter. But honesty, that matters a lot. That matters to death. 

IMAANDARI

 The most underrated practical advice I have ever received from someone was from a stranger man, a Muslim, on my way to home, when I was coming from my 12th School to my hometown. Whole ride it seemed like, he wanted to convince me off any pragmatic nonsense I ever had in my mind regarding honesty. I did not know him. Neither did anyone of the people in the bus listening to him. He was almost a lunatic, shouting at top of his voice. And then he sat beside me, which trembled me a lot. I thought I am in a difficult situation. 

He told me, "Be honest my boy, of course in Jharkhand accent Hindi, this is the best rewarding way to live!" Today when I am fully convinced, like it took me 7 years to verify this that he was saying the truth. 

Honesty is not just a matter of morality. It is a wise business decision. It has benefits which goes beyond just economic benefits but also social benefits and relationship benefits. I think Honest people live happily, they sleep peacefully at night, and more so, they are never insecure. 

Here are some instances in my life, which verified that man's statement, 

1. Honest people are honest as a duty. They do not see this in this way, that what do I have to lose by being honest. They do not consider dishonesty as an option. They take honesty as a spiritual practice. They say, "this is my job! Whatever I get from it is a gift. Be it hardships or otherwise." My whole life has been the so-called wise people of society, including my friends, my seniors and my family members, to not just be blindly honest. To always be calculative. To always make the best possible choice. And what My observation has been, these people who even calculate to speak the truth, are those who are always in fear. These people are actually 90% of the people I have met. These people keep lying and they keep feeling miserable. Their calculated step always comes out to be a miscalculation. And they remain fearful of consequences. And they are mentally suffering, they are also suffering in general. 

Rather, very few people, are as direct as I am now, they say the truth. They put themselves on front. They are like, "Kill me if you wish, but if I am living, I will not be dishonest". This man sleeps well. Because he already has so much grit that consequences of honesty has no effect on him. He is like, bring it on. 

2. Most of my life, I have been an avid Lier. I used to lie, mostly in insecurity. and this I saw, Honest people are seldom insecure. They are the most secure people I have ever seen. In later part of my life, I have got this complement from women, that you are the most secure man that they have seen. This made me realize, yes! Like, even if I have insecurities, when there comes a discussion of insecurities, or when someone tries to push your buttons of insecurity, honest people have honesty in their sub-conscious, that they just open in front of people. They will just say, "See, I am not ok with you saying this, I have been through tough times, and I have suffered in this subject, so this subject is a bit touchy for me". 

This might seem an uncomfortable conversation but that is the beauty of honesty. It gives you courage. You say it, and you do not worry whether he will take it otherwise. Let them, you did your job. It is wonderful. He remains sorted. He is never defensive. He is never judging even if he is judged a lot. What satisfies him perpetually? His spiritual practice of honesty. 

3. Most people, including me, do politics in their daily life. They behave politically with friends, family and even with their partners. This need to be strategically political stems from the fact that somehow in the heart of everyone is a selfish need of extracting pleasure from someone, either through sex, material or even company. This need is dishonest in the core. When you want some benefit from someone, you become dishonest. By any means you want it. But honest men have limited needs. Just because they are honest and so hell bent in doing their duty of honesty, they say, why to wish for things that can only be bought through dishonesty. 

They might say, "I will not touch that pleasure with a stick which comes from dishonesty." 

And these are people who are most sorted, politics free, and good hearted who have no difference in their speech, action and thoughts. 

What do you think I did afterwards? I have decided, "If success can come only through a pragmatism which takes away my honesty, I do not want it." I will beg and eat but will never cheat. 

And if you have this much grit that you can declare this, it is sure that the world will not let you die or beg. You will have integrity, such that you will achieve big things. Honest people do not have problems that dishonest people do. 

This is the philosophy I like to live. A philosophy of strength, inner strength and confidence. Imaandari as I call it, is my Armour and my sword in the Yuddha of life. 

"Do not pity the honest, Pity the dishonest, and above all, Pity those, who keep dishonesty even as an option in their decision-making." 

MAD FOR NOMADS: A LIST OF ALL HEURISTICS AND THEIR PRIORITY LISTS (2/N)

 To search for objectivity in a poem is a search in vain. The only method in madness is empirical observation and witnessing truth yourself. 

I will enlist here some important techniques and find in how many cases they could have been used and a priority list of these techniques. 

In general, one must follow one meta principle: 

Essence of Question > Knowledge/concept based > Deductive Reason > Inductive reason 

 Most of our MAD techniques come in the category of Inductive reason, that is why, most people remain confused which technique to apply in which question. And often they use inductive reason in places where deductions would have worked, or it was a pure knowledge based one. 

Out of these, we clearly see, 

a priority list of inductive reasons: (Of course deductions and essence come first but then out of Inductions, the following priority gives better outcomes) 

1. Linguistic hints (Can, may, Must, Necessary, legally binding, etc.)

2. Extra explanatory statements (...But not..., ...and..., ...but... etc.)

3. Examiner convenience logic 

4. GBW 

5. Consequential logic, complement statements, substitute statements

6. Generic, Positive themed statements, etc. 

7. Facts to be going wrong, comparison questions were exchange of facts

8.  Multi-facts correct, Many facts wrong

9. +ve/-ve logic

10. Range of Data correct Data wrong

11. organizations often wrong, acts often right, 2 orgs often wrong, etc. 

12. Out of 5, 3 correct; Out of 4, 2 correct and so on. 

This is a rough analysis. If I would have more time, I would have done it. I regret not doing it since January. But more or less. My work remains that I am going to apply it to 10 years paper to consolidate it at least in my mind. I think, you should too. 

OBSERVATIONS ON ISAIAH BERLIN'S "TWO LIBERTIES"

Berlin is one of my favorite thinkers. He is really underrated. Nobody talks about him. May be because he is among those vanishing thinkers who contributed anti-thetical hypothesis to our pro-thesis world. Our world values less those who play a part of giving intermediary thoughts before getting to the acceptable one, usually the compromising middle path. 

Two liberties, Positive and Negative. Let us get the basics right first. 

Positive Liberty: Opportunity to develop oneself fully. 

Negative Liberty: Absence of Restraints. 

The magic lies in the dialectical relationship between these two liberties and then the contradictions this relationship produces. And as a noble Hegelian, I am always up for contradictions. 

Let me expand. Now, suppose, there is a government which operates on Negative Liberty. That is, it just provides no restraint. That is, it does nothing which hinders in any way, liberty of any individual. The sheer turn of phrase is so broadly negative, like "in any way", that the government practically does nothing in the social or economic sphere. That might in some circumstances, be very detrimental to people. 

But, this will always be sold as freedom to the people. This is how, precisely Slavery is sold to them as freedom. If parents do nothing to ensure liberty of their children, one brother who is more powerful (Here the rich, or higher caste, or the Dominant gender) will effectively enslave his powerless brother and hence, there will be slavery under the Hijab/Pallu of Freedom. This, I choose to call, the Negation of Liberty within Negative liberty. 

Now, let me tell you if you now think that Positive liberty is something good and needed to aspire for, You are mistaken. Let me give you another contradiction. Suppose a new government who is hell bent on Positive Liberty. That is, it is committed to Providing circumstances to people where they can grow themselves fully. But the question arises, Is growth an objective category? Is growth a category on which everyone agrees? Like, ok, this is growth, and we aspire. NO! a big no! Growth comes with some value system. What we consider as growth depends on which value system we have. Like, suppose a modern democratic government tried to instill secular value-based growth, like the congress government of India just after independence. Remember, what JL Nehru said, "Dams and Powerplants are modern temples of India". This was a deliberate attempt to change the value system of country's highly religious but impoverished people so that they start valuing education, energy and material resources more. But then we see in recent times, the offense of majority of this country to this secular model of growth, where State actively tried to impose their own value system on the people. Today, when the common Hindu of this country, although brainwashed, says, "We do not want hospitals, we do not want schools, we want temples." As if, they have reversed the thesis of Nehru, they are saying like, "Temples are the post-modern dams and powerplants of India". This is a stupid statement, with only poetic value but no truth value, but this is what the common man of this country now believes as real growth. According to the new value system of the newly formed government, this is growth. And this is the problem of Positive liberty. If there is a value system mismatch of what the government thinks as growth and what the masses think, there is bound to be either coercion or subversion. Which can be said to be fascistic. Fascism is precisely when the Government says, we know what is better for the people more than the people themselves. This is a serious political theory problem, which I call, Apparent Fascism due to value system mismatch. 

Another question arises if government represents the real will of the people in a democracy, from where does this value mismatch arise? The answer to this is, Will is not spontaneous in people. It is very easy to create an artificial demand of what people want by their political dispensation. And people obey. Hence, any new regime takes time to take over, since it has to overhaul the value system of the society. 

For example, The Nehruvian socialist value based Indian society was based on the values of equity and social justice. But RSS and many such right-wing organizations worked really hard at the ground level to change this value system to cultural supremacist value system of Hindus. And that killed the Nehruvian Ethos. RSS won. But if Nehruvian values can die, it means all values are impermanent and can die. The ideas and values of RSS will also die and will be replaced by another yet to come value system. We need to create that idea and value system that has the acumen and ability to replace Hindutva. 

So, this was my observation. Negation exists in both these liberties. And when one is tried, other seems viable. And thus, a pass the baton keeps going. Whether to intervene or not, is the question. This has been the central question of parenting as well with no correct answers. The discussion will go on. 

In fact, I think Ambedkar has here to contribute. His idea of social democracy> Political Democracy is at play here. If everything ultimately depends on the value system or ideal hegemony of social sphere, hence any decision of political dispensation, whether to intervene or not, will be taken only after a thorough investigation of the value systems of the society and the study of existing hegemonies. 

But generally, in a Negative liberty operated government, since there is no intervention in the social sphere, we see, Social sphere growing autonomously on the value systems of older times, that is not growing at all. Like, most of rural India is still Feudal in social structure, although there is a outer layer of elections and hence political democracy in it. 

This is how, Negative liberty reinforces the Value mismatch and makes the interventionists also seem like Fascists. Similarly, Positive liberty also can re-enforce Negation of Liberty. 

Thus, these two are dialectically related.  

VALUE THEORY OF LABOUR

“Growth of productive capital and rise of wages, are they really, so indissolubly united as the bourgeois economists maintain? We must not believe their mere words. We dare not believe them even when they claim that the fatter capital is the more will its slave be pampered.”
― Karl Marx, Wage-Labour and Capital & Value, Price and Profit

“But capital not only lives upon labor. Like a master, at once distinguished and barbarous, it drags with it into its grave the corpses of its slaves, whole hecatombs of workers, who perish in the crises.”
― Karl Marx, Wage-Labour and Capital & Value, Price and Profit

These two quotes that I have taken from Marx's Writings, when I read this book "Wage Labour and Capital" for the first time, I was in my second year of Graduation, I felt both as what Archimedes would have felt and what Bhagat Singh would have felt. That is both excited and angry. I was excited at the brilliance of this man's analysis and angry at the injustice that Capitalist system presents us with and how we are told to celebrate it like a freedom giver.  

This new topic named, "Value theory of Labour" came to me when I was debating about "Labour theory of Value" with my Friends. And I realized, these people, my friends, just debate on the basis of their naive common sense. They know Marx only through some Political theory textbook or some exam notes. I wonder, if they ever read "Wages-Labour and Capital", one of the best works of him. 

I wonder if they ever saw the brilliance that Marxian economics has. I think most people remain apprehended of Marx because of his stature as a revolutionary. But in reality, Marxian economics is much more real than the so called 101 Economics course of blind demand and supply and the myths like an invisible hand, you read about. 

Anyone reading this, I urge you to read Marx, especially his economics. The genius lies there. He is a B+ Sociologist, And "A" Political scientist, but an A+ Economist. 

Coming to the concept, Labour theory of value is not Marxian, first of all. It was given by social contractarians. Locke is credited with this. It is simple, value of a commodity is determined by how much labor is done on it. 

To say that Capitalist economics runs on this is a lie or an ignorant statement. It runs on petty concepts of demand and supply. And since there is nothing concrete about market demand. It can just artificially be constructed through a gossip, The whole value system of commodities in capitalism comes in thin air and vanishes in thin air. 

I say, Capitalist economics, be it any form, the earlier Mercantilism, or late-stage Neo-liberalism, it runs on what I call, "The Value theory of Labour". 

Any Bourgeois apologist you meet, they will tell you one stupid superstition, That Entrepreneur does labor too, and he gets outcome of his labor. Then they accuse communists and socialists to be people who do not recognize Mental labor. The thing is, first of all, We do not. Physical and mental labor are different. But never ever a single communist has written that Mental labor is not labor. These idiots make gossips in their heads and put it in our mouths. 

Secondly, since Mental and Physical labor are different, we say, they are needed to be treated like exchange rates. Like, Ok, Entrepreneur's work is recognized as profits and Labour's as wages. But, what is, then the exchange rate between Wages to profit. Ever saw that data? 

This is the fucked up Economic system that we are talking about. The gap of this exchange rate between Physical and mental labor is so big. Profit grows at a rate of 22.3% and these are excluding inflation. Do you know how much Wages grew? 

2.7%. Yes! this is what we are saying. We recognize entrepreneurship as labor. The problem is you do not recognize the most important constituent of production process, labor. You discriminate between Labour and Labour. 

And if you are in a delusion that this is the case of distinction between Physical and mental labour, you are mistaken. Imagine being a manager in a factory, Aren't you taking decisions? Aren't you doing Mental labor? But you too, get a wage and not shares of Profit. 

So, the distinction here is not of Physical labour and mental labour. It is between Entrepreneur's labour and other people's labour. 

Other people's labour gives them wages grow like peanuts and Entrepreneurs' profits grow like bamboo shoots. This is the problem of this. 

Growth of Outcome of Mental labour (Of a specific kind, not all) = 100 times Growth of outcome of all other kinds of Labour 

 Let me expand more. Why exactly is the system like this? Ever asked? Because Capitalism makes a fool out of you. 

It says that it rewards risk taking ability and labour both, and it considers mental labour above physical labour, but in reality, it values only Capital. Entrepreneur's labour is treated differently because he already has capital. Which is contradictory to the basic premise of production, that is Labour theory of value. 

If labour is that thing which creates value, Why is Capital treated more than labour. Why labour is so volatile that with a sudden demand and supply shock, the labour is forced to die, while the capitalist survives every shock, his company might suffer, but he lives. Because he already has capital in his clutches. 

Capitalism works on "Capital theory of value" or what I choose to call it, "Value theory of Labour". 

Value theory of labour meaning, we already assign values to different labors, based on the capital that the labour harbors. Since, the employee, the Laborer comes with no capital, he has only his labour to contribute, his labour has no value while Entrepreneur comes with capital backed little labor and hence, he is valued. 

His earnings are because of this pre-decided value of Capital, which fetches him Profit. Capital gets him interest which he invests back in capital to maintain it, while profit he consumes. This profit does not come from thin air but is product of labour. 

What makes a commodity is labour. Even if you have to drink water from a river, you need to make a cup from your hands, or your hands like a cup and try to fill water in it, this is labour. 

Natural resources become commodities just because of Labour. So, the commodity value all that it has is because of labour. And labour is forced to survive of wages, which grows by 1-2 percent a year. 

Since there is this growth rate disparity, the capital grows like a big tumor in the brain of the economic system, the profits go in growth of this tumor, whereas all other body parts become malnourished. And one day, the tumor bursts and goes all to waste, since the body parts do not even have that much energy to carry the tumor any further. The tumor dies and dies with it the whole human, here in this case, the economic system. And with this, die millions of people who just thought that they can survive on wages, they trusted the tumor to be the greatest invention of modernity, but it was the most deceptive sweet poison man has ever invented. 

EXPLAINING "THE BIG OTHER" TO A FRIEND

 

My Friend: Where is Lacan?

Vibhat Kumar: He is as usual absent, since Lacan is the real "Big Other".

 Vibhat Kumar: And the biggest truth of Lacanian Psychoanalysis is, "There is no big other".

Vibhat Kumar: Yet it functions.

 Vibhat Kumar: I know you are joking aur I am also joking, but isi bahane, let me describe what do we mean when we say, " The Big Other" In Lacanian Psychoanalysis. 

Many people misinterpret it as, "God". Yes, Big other is God but not just limited to God. Big other is any externality that we, in a fear psychosis, obey, thinking that if we did not, we will suffer in some way. So, just in fear psychosis of something external to ourselves, we start obeying it. That is the Big other.

 Vibhat Kumar: For example, A simple case, where two friends have gone to eat something in Market, now, it is customary to say in some friendships, "I will pay", "no, no, I will pay", even if one of the friends do not perhaps have enough money. But, he has to do this ritual in such a subtle way that a message is conveyed that "We are so good friends that I am asking for paying your bill". 

But then, Lacan says, "There is no big other", The friend does this empty gesture thinking, It is a niceness that one has to do, because otherwise, his friend will think he is cheap. 

This psychological aberration in perspective of every human, which distorts his sense of reality where he starts obeying rules that nobody made. They were just done by someone once, and then everyone thought, "This is a rule". 

Forgetting that this was never a rule. 

God is one such Big other. Traditions are such big others. But more so, Language is the biggest other. What words we use to convey something does not speak anything about our feelings, but just what kind of people we have met. 

"If Free people are all around you, your language will be able to express bondage in a much easier way. But if slaves are surrounded around you, A talk of freedom will prevail, since only slaves think they are free."

~ Zizek in one of his seminars to explain the Big other.

 Hope it is clear.😅

 maza aaya hoga, i hope padh ke

Vibhat Kumar: Damn, I am so impressed by my own explanation, I might add it to my next blog. 😂😅

MAD FOR NOMADS: A GUIDE TO HEURISTICS IN UPSC CIVIL SERVICES PRELIMINARY EXAM (1/N)

 Civil services prelims exam requires some heuristic and lateral vision of knowledge that helps and comes in handy. 

Like, I have watched Aptitude videos of Satyam sir in Understand UPSC and wanted to pen it down once and for all, in a theoretical framework to formalize all the known heuristics up until now. 

Like, I categorize problem solving abilities into three parts, namely, 

1. Pure conceptual, factual or knowledge-based clarity excluding Deductions. 

2. Deductive reasoning which requires basic subject knowledge, conceptual clarity and rest, logical reasoning. These include, 

(a) Including subject specific concepts to deduce,

(b) Using in general logic to deduce, Like Finding Contradictions in options, etc. 

3. Pure Heuristics: Which includes, 

    (a) Linguistics, that involves Language games, like observing the previous papers and finding out the language in which UPSC frames correct options and the language in which it frames wrong options, so basically its observational skills with Inductive reasoning. 

(b) Statistics, that involves having a clear cut data on things like, How many times in the last year, has UPSC given a phrase, "At least 30%" and the statement was correct, if you have that rough estimate, you can apply induction and induce that this particular option, though you have no idea about it, is more likely to be correct. 

This is the broad overview to the world that we call MAD, or MCQ Aptitude Development. I have learned it from Satyam sir, and I wish to systematize it. Not only I wish to do this, But I wish to do statistical basic research, and give a data on how many times a particular technique could have been applied and how many times out of these, It gave correct answer. I was inspired to do this because of last year's ranker Devika Priyadarshini madam, she did the same last year. 

This will help me summarize MAD techniques. Also, I will keep it in different series. 

1. Subject wise basic principles and PYQ analysis and Applications of Deductions. 

2. Year wise MAD Application research document. 

Let us try to do this in a few days. Let's see where we go. 

"I"

It is my absolute favorite alphabet in the whole 26 set. Never accept any other answer than this from me. Any other answer might just be a lie or just "I" in a metaphorical way, for instance, If I say, It is "V", that is also because it is first letter of my given name. 

I, I think is a complete expression in itself. As if, all expressions come out of this expression itself. For why will you need to express yourself? Expression requires a very strong I. Artists write not because they feel empty as a self, they write because they are too full of themselves. That's why people who cannot write, cannot express themselves become only critics in literature. They could not even form a strong "first person" character, how are you supposed to form a whole set of characters and a story plot? 

The full self of Artists, "I", as we choose to call it, compels the artist to write. But why though? Why does he write with so much obsession? Why doesn't he write calmly, like a waterfall? Why it is always like spilling of coffee? Why so much chaos in an artist's life? It is complicated. Let me try to put it simply. 

So, there are mediocre uncreative people mostly, with a mundane personal life, with art consumption and no art production. These categories of people, as I said, do not even have a fully developed "I". 

Then there are Saints, who have seen the side-effects of the illusion of a fully developed "I". What I mean is the central principle of Adhyatm, like, we know that a fully developed "I" is an illusion, a mirage, as beautiful as it seems, it makes the artist more and more anxious. A saint knows this. A saint knows that there is no way to have a fully developed "I", in this world. He knows that the body will not be satisfied ever, the mind, not at all, and more so, the combination, never. 

It is only the Artist, someone like "Jaun Elia", "Charles Bukowski", "Shiv Kumar Batalvi" and a few other names, who are privileged enough to have grown the big an "I" that they could not take it. As if, you have been given a glass so big in a desert that you start dreaming how will it be like to have the complete glass of water, but then nobody offers you water. Existence is an empty glass with no water of satisfaction. You have two options from here on, as an artist, either drink your own saliva and pretend that's water and keep yourself happy, like mediocre people do, running and toiling for money and then spending it for self-indulgence. Isn't it exactly like this? A man works for a paycheck, so basically the paycheck is his hard labor, which he spends on things that he has convinced himself is water but is not. 

Or second, what you can do is imagine a mirage, like a psychotic, or like a poet, as per your fancy. 

A psychotic is a POET who cannot write, A poet is psychotic with a pen. 

That is the reason I almost fear serenity and peace, and a luxury of life. Give me stress, give me illusion, that too starts with an "I", and I will work for it. If you give me peace, I fear I might break it with my psychotic urge to write more. 

I wrote 15000 words approximately in 2 months last year when I got some luxury of self-indulgence. Give me luxury, that proves, And I might churn out books, at least 15 within 2 months. 

That is how Artist lives, In a constant urge to be satisfied. I constantly ask myself, What else is left? Why not now? Why not get it over with? I have no issues. I have no worries. I have no anxieties. I am so full of myself that barely other person's life bothers me, barely do I even look outside of myself. 

As Jaun Elia writes, 

"Kisi Dum, Chain pad jata Mujhe Bhi, 

Magar mai khud se dum bhar ko Zuda nahi...!" 

 

or Oh! I wish I would have been satisfied, but I am too full of myself and non-separate from myself to be satisfied. 

I am so much me, that I cannot be happy. This phenomenon might be called, "Too Intelligent to be Enlightened". 

Intelligence is a funny word. That too starts with an "I". As if people really are intelligent. A funnier word is Artificial Intelligence. As if, there is something like a "Natural Intelligence". 

How is it natural when there is a coding involved here, a permutation and combination involved here, a sophisticated programming logic is involved. Just because you cannot find a human programmer to your brain's software, you will start calling yourself naturally intelligent. What a jerk! 

I see no difference between an "I" and an "AI". 

Biology, Sociology, Psychology and economics are really different programming interpreters that interpret our code. Like, it compiles them for us. For the first time when I read Consumer Behavior in Microeconomics, I felt exposed. I felt if my desires and my choices are this much controllable, It means the concepts of free will, and freedoms and fundamental rights are all a facade. 

Actually, by these words we keep ourselves busy in debates while programmers do our programming. MBA people, people who manage profits for firms, people who make ads, they code us in effect. 

And in retrospect we think, oh my desires are not mine; they were given to me. That too, is a privilege of a person of very high self-awareness. Yes! Finally, a word which really is of importance and not a funny word. Self-awareness is the real intelligence. That is the real knowledge. Rest everything is consumer behavior, you can consume facts and concepts like you consume Ice-cream. 

The more you are self-reflective, the more you are present in the moment, the more you are responsive to the acts that you do in real time. Self-awareness is not that facade where you commit all kinds of acts and then come at night and write a journal and recall what did you do and where might all that be coming from? 

Self-awareness is therapeutic in real time. You instantly notice a particular thought or action in real time, a particular emotion arising out of you, even without expression, you feel certain things. On a good day, I can even control it. My heart beats go up on my will and they come down on my will. Not always but sometimes. 

So, Intelligence is a Facade, hence IQ is a facade. Self-awareness quotient, is that a thing? No, not really! I think Awareness is a flow variable. How can you keep a quotient of it, if just flows. You need memory to have an IQ. Without basic memory, IQ is meaningless. 

So, all words that start from "I" are like "I" only, a facade. That's why, I find myself most happy in works where I alienate myself the most. Like give me a task of closing my eyes and sit for an hour or two. I am happy. At least, I got an option to disconnect from myself. "I" is the internet whose data pack never ends. And I hope, one day I just throw the phone away. 

"Oh The passions of desire! take me away,

Oh the laughs of the sire! take me away,

For I am too much for myself to bear, 

For I am so much more to tear! 

the world cannot look me in eyes, 

The world has secrets that it hides, 

For my friends pretend something they wanna be, 

For my enemies came by, and gave up on me, 

I am just too full of myself to be! 

How much more I was to them, I can see! 

I do not want to bother anyone anymore! 

Bore me you all, and your life I ignore! 

"Oh The passions of desire! take me away,

Oh the laughs of the sire! take me away," 

DISCOURSING: A NEW CONCEPT EXPOSES PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY

Philosophy is basically about words and their meanings, isn't it? You might say, basically yes, but isn't every discipline about Words and their meanings? Yes, but they are never defined as such. 

For instance, Economics, what is it, we define economics on the basis of an assumption of "Scarcity". We assume that the reader knows that natural resources are scarce. Without it, Economics has no meaning. But this one word on which the whole discipline is, in a way depended, remains as an unsaid assumption of the discipline. These unsaid assumptions are in every subject, that is basically the essence of the discipline. 

But when we talk about Philosophy, the spooky thing about Philosophy is, even if we try to define its territories, we begin with word breakdown, and say, "Love for knowledge", The central assumption here is perhaps, "Human beings have the ability and willingness to know". But This is such a wide assumption, that it seems like this discipline is like an element in its own set. 

Like, In Set theory, Consider, a set of all sets that deals with disciplines of knowledge. Like, in the set builder format. 

X = {x: x is a discipline dealing with knowledge} 

Now, If X set you defined as Philosophy, is not one of the elements of X, that is x, not philosophy? It is right. That is, Philosophy is the meta-discipline that is self-contained. It is contained within itself. In other words, the only discipline that is self-aware. 

What are the implications of this? One of the implications is what I call, Discoursing. 

In Philosophy, we see philosophers like me, being a wannabe. What is the difference between a wannabe philosopher and a real philosopher? In 90% of the times, nothing, but in reality, a lot. A real Philosopher deals with meanings, or its crisis and abundance. A pseudo-philosopher deals with words. In essence, his whole analysis, his whole work revolves around words, giving new words to some old meanings. 

He is not creating newer meanings to older words, which is one of the ways of authentic Philosophizing. He just discourses. He just defines something as something which is either previously defined or gives just a vague meaning or gives even sometimes an empty meaning. 

When does a word have an empty meaning? I came across a question that has confused me for 10-12 years. What is the difference between the words, "Business" and "Buisness"? 

Isn't this a common confusion? Yes, it is. You might also get confused. But in reality, what is it? Business comes from the word, Busy or Buzz relating to action, or dynamism. So, Business is the act of being busy. This is the etymological meaning. Historical accumulation of meaning happens, and Business gets a modern meaning, relating to trade of goods and services. 

But what is Buisness? It is nothing basically. There is no word as such. There is no business of Buisness being in the word business. But, that itself, the major flaw of the word, becomes a meaning of the word. I searched it on Wiktionary. And you will be surprised to find out that this is exactly the meaning of Buisness. 

This is what I am talking about. The meaning of Buisness is empty. There is no meaning. Hence, there should not be, ideally, a word "buisness". But, the sole relation of falsehood, the misspelling of business, itself gives this false word "Buisness", a meaning. 

As if, the word would have begun when a confused soul like me forgot the spelling of Business and wrote buisness. And then it occurred to many people such that this legit becomes a word of its own negation. 

This is what discoursing is, in essence. Discoursing, I define, as the pseudo-philosophizing practice, an attempt to philosophize when you either mis-define, re-define or even un-define an already defined concept or word. 

This is the beauty of philosophy. It can call out, "False Philosophies" through authentic philosophies. 

This, in essence, has what's been happening to Indian Philosophy or Adhyatm also. Every new thinker in Adhyatm, came and said, that the before philosophies were Pseudo. 

The word "Discoursing" itself might then be a truer, authentic philosophy with a legit new meaning, which is, the discourse of giving false discourses. 

The implications of this will be multi-fold. Not only words can be called out for the pseudo-meanings, but also, meanings can be called out for their repetition in words, more so, what does it say about human mind? Human mind is more and more similar to machines. It understands words more and meanings less. 

I find this in my friends and in general with people of okay intelligence. When I will say things like these where a newly formed idea, which I have sort of coined. They look at me with a view of dis-belief, as if it is not understandable to them. As if, they cannot understand the meaning in its naked self, that is in a descriptive form. 

For example, If I say to them, you know, words have two meanings, Etymological and historical. With history, Words accumulate meanings, just like capital is accumulated within itself. These newer meanings may or may not have anything to do with the original meaning of the word and many a times, the meaning is totally different or anti-thetical to the original meaning. They said, they don't understand it. 

But, then I say, I choose to define this concept as, "Historical accumulation of meaning". Then they say, "Oh! Now we get it!" 

Somehow just giving it a name, makes them more comfortable with the meaning. As Jaun Elia says, 

Yahan Maani Ka Be Soorat Sila Naeen

Ajab kuch maine socha hai, Likha naeen! 

or, to give a translation, "Here, in this world, there is no meaning of a meaning without a word." 

But anyone, who understands philosophy, should know that meanings exist. That is the proof of God. Meanings exist independent of words. Words are our invention. But meanings? Aren't they, our invention? This will require another blog. We need to find out, "Is intelligence and intelligibility our invention?" 

Till then, I leave you with the concept of "Discoursing". 

TRAIN TO BUSAN AND BANALITY OF EVIL

A film which shows an anti-thesis to Hannah Arendt's Banality of evil is, in my opinion, Train to Busan, The Korean film. More often than not, it is very easy to reduce the act of the fund manager of the film, who is the main character of the film, the father, as the Evil banality symbol. He is supposed to be the Eichmann in Jerusalem. 

I do not particularly agree with this analysis. Why, let me explain. 

The fund manager seems to be highly goal oriented; he decides to sell all the shares of a particular Pharma company so that in effect, the business of that company went down, and in revenge, they opened a pandora's box of some zombie making virus to the whole country. 

But he never knew that this could cause this big an effect. This is very essential and often misunderstood nuance of Banality of Evil. 

Banality of Evil is when, the doer knows what he is doing is immoral and is going to cause a havoc. For instance, Eichmann knew that he is going to kill, in effect, thousands of Jews. But somehow, morality was irrelevant to him. Orders and becoming a better civil servant were important for him than thinking what is good or bad. 

This "complete information" assumption is very important for banality of evil. More often than not, we just associate any act of ignorance with Banality of Evil. Ordinary mistakes can also have a snowball effect to such extent that existence comes to threat. But this Hermeneutic Temptation to call it "Banality of Evil" is highly mistaken. Actually, where does this temptation come from? 

I think, a pressure of have a meaningful explanation for such a major disaster is needed for humans. Humans, it seems, simply cannot fathom the simple fact that things can go miserably wrong, the way they never assumed it to go, and it will link to just one unvoluntary or even unconscious action. 

But, Man should get this that, he has escaped jungle and made society, but the rules of Jungle, that is Uncertainty, still engulfs most of our lives. This obsession of modernity to ascertain everything, every aspect of our lives is maddening the man. It seems, he is unimmune to no amount of uncertainty in his life. In general Immunities, Physical and mental has been seriously on a decline for human civilization. 

This, we can call, Spiritual Immunity, that is, Immunity to withstand Uncertainty and even disaster. Banality of Evil is the textbook definition of evil in my opinion. As, the man who knows that he sides with the evil, can one day choose good. But, the one who is convinced that he is somehow just doing his job, beyond good or evil, basically is saying, 

"I am doing my job, so My actions have consequences which I should not worry about. They system takes care of it."

But here is the catch, there is no such thing as a system accountable to the overall consequences. No system can fully calculate at a finer level, consequences of all actions of all actors. It is you and you are alone. Your actions have consequences, and you will have to take responsibility for it. An irresponsible duty performed in hope that system works through this, is actually a blind faith of modern bureaucracy. Like, Invisible Hand of Adam Smith, Like God theory, etc. 

Tasks of oblivion of consequences and snowball effect is not evil. It is sadly an innocence with dangerous consequences, nobody can do anything about. It is the Machiavellian Fortuna, One can only be Spiritually brave and immune to witness and withstand. 

BHANWARI DEVI AND THE LEGACY OF WOMEN RIGHTS

The problem with the apparent split in perception that exists between the phenomenological view of a social problem (the aspects of the social problem you see or observe) and the statistical view of the social problem (A well-documented, well researched Demographic data-based analysis of the social problem) is that the Phenomenological view is often confused or inflated to be the actual problem. For example, to personalize every social problem, giving statements like, my family treats me and my sister as same, or say, looking at 2-3 cases of Crimes in relationships where male is the victim, to just give a blind verdict that in India, now Patriarchal structure is over, now there are Feminazis and women oppressing men. 

The reason why these judgements and observations are seen and can be understood by the stakeholder's approach. See, who is giving this statement. A Male rights activist, a Masculine apologist, a patriarchal culture saver or a religion apologist in the garb of spiritual man or even a woman well-conditioned to celebrate her own oppression. 

The faction is not, as usual, between men and women here. The faction is between, obviously between Democratic citizens who prioritize individual rights over any kind of traditional systemic oppression and Anti-democratic Patriarchal Caste and religion apologists. 

When we see the research statistics, and not just view the social problem through headline statistics (Selective news that is highlighted by media), we find besides the women who are deemed feminazi because they challenge the masculine freedom by exercising their own freedoms, and on other hand, the apologists, we find a whole lot of unheard and oppressed population of women, who still haven't have voice to even say out loud that they get raped, they get molested, they get mistreated. 

Out of these unheard and unvoiced women, with time what happens, that some good conscience media voices it, or may be some Supreme court judgement makes it an important landmark of judicial history, that it comes to light. I will put down the story of this woman, and the gruesome nature of her story should be enough for any good conscience man to understand that however hard you think your life is, and howsoever oppressed your brain might tell you are, your oppression, first of all, 

1. is not systemic in nature. The system is not patriarchal, rather general capitalist structure. 

2. That oppression is not exclusive to you. Capitalist oppression is an overarching oppression that encompasses everyone who can do labor. Whereas Gender based oppression is subjected to only women and women alone. And third gender. Whatever you conceive as oppression for yourself, that is actually a masked privilege, the benefits that you get, for instance, by acting like a man, like not crying and other cliches, is immense. You are exempted from household chores, your material gains are so so much more than your tiny inconvenience, that, in my humblest of conscience, men should not have the audacity to complain. 

Bhanwari devi, a Potter caste woman, in Rajasthan, brutally raped by 5 men, because she got a conscience. She opposed a child marriage, and in turn, for having an honest and just heart, she was brutally raped by 5 men of the family. I wonder, if these men also complain that they are not allowed to cry, how oppressive patriarchy! No, I guess, right? 

And this is not all. She complains to Police. The Police belongs to the same caste of the rapists, Gurjar. I wonder if there is a need of a state-based violence mechanism against dominant castes of India, Gurjar, Jaat, Bhumihars, Rajputs, etc. I wonder, if an honest socialist government would have used force to wipe the caste pride off their asses. 

She was opposed, silenced, and attacked numerous times, sometimes outside of the court, by then BJP MLA, Kanhaiya Lal Meena. She lost the case, how obvious, isn't it? 

Then she was ostracized from her own caste community. She was outcasted by potters. As if the Potters said, "How dare you opposed your rape, our tradition says, our women will be raped by Gurjars, this is our pride, this is our tradition." Are you feeling ashamed of your third world country? Are you feeling ashamed of your own gender? You should. Are you feeling ashamed of every social identity that you have. I do. Everyday. 

Then, she had to give her own community, a bribe, 25000 rupees that she got as a prize from then PM Narashimha Rao, for now outcasting her. Why didn't he come out of that goddamn village and start a new life? Good question Sherlock, that is because, she was poor and 40 years old. 40 years old alone woman, with her husband against it, how dare she come out of her community? 

Now, she was casted again. But her son did not get a daughter to marry in her own community. 

I leave this here. She got numerous awards for her bravery. Because of her, today, POSH and Vishakha guidelines exist. Judicial legislations exist. 

But, then we see, 20 years later, another gruesome gangrape, Nirbhaya. Now, is it nitpicking? Are these only two cases? No! These are two cases where you can see clear-cut hypocrisy of public response. Let me explain. 

Nirbhaya, note her background, her caste, her urban life, her social circumstances and then Bhanwari Devi, her caste, her rural background, and then what happened was the intersectionality of caste, gender and class. 

Male apologists include men of diverse backgrounds. Many educated people, many intellectuals, I otherwise like, when they open their mouths on this matter, spew and spit bullshit. And inside, I only have one response, "You ignorant pig!" 

Women rights are not just a matter of state intervention. Now, I am saying something very fascistic and even very gruesome. Something which I call, The Savarkarite solution of Women oppression. Let me explain. 

First of all, Why Savarkar? I say, why not, he is a thinker. As a thinker, we should not be biased in reading and subverting thinkers. Secondly, Savarkar's idea to "Militarize Hinduism" was the solution to the problem of attacks and threat of Hindu civilization. To which I disagree, because obviously, it is a false solution to the false problem. Hindu civilization even if in danger, is not relevant. The real problem is of loot and economic oppression and the feudal common background. So, whosoever be the ruler, the magnitude of oppression might vary, hence all medieval rulers should be deemed criminals in the modern eye, be it Shivaji or Akbar. No distinction between Hindu or Mughal. 

But I use this idea to curb women oppression. I say, Militarize Women. Let not there remain any civilian woman, let all women be military trained, having the capacity to kill and bury then and there. Let there be strong women centric parties, communities, and conglomerates, that come together to fight. 

Why? Because as State intervention is not enough, since State is hideously patriarchal. And as men who raped a woman once said, "I Raped because I could". 

Let them be taught, that She killed because she could. 

PHILOSOPHY OF WAR: MAYA KI STUTI

MATERIALIST SPIRITUALITY: 

Spirituality, essentially an idealist theory, dealing with centrality of idea of spirit or unit of self-knowledge, and on the other hand, Materialism, a theoretical framework which attempts to describe the centrality of material conditions in the making up of the world around us, including ideas and all other emergent properties. And here I am, with an epiphany, to merge both of them. 

I was reading Durga Saptshati, essentially a spiritual scripture centered around the concept of Shakti as a feminine energy, or power as a feminine energy of Nature. I was reading this because I found myself disturbed by the recent war like situations of India and Pakistan. Amidst all confusion where some people are supporting war (Mostly, these are people from non-border states of India) and those who are wishing for soon ending of war (These are people for whom it is a direct risk, they live in bordering states of India), I found both these sides flawed since both of them seem to be coming from a place of selfishness, ego and self-centrism. It does not matter if you call your ego nationalism, Ego is ego. Similarly, the earlier killings of Indian Civilians by asking their religion were not right, so just to wish that my homes remain safe when people are getting killed is also self-centered and hence coming from ego.  

Hence, I returned to scriptures for answer about how to feel, how to think. and I got my answer. In the first chapter of Durga Saptshati, When Vishnu sleeps by virtue of Maa Prakriti, Madhu and Kaitap, two demons took birth from the ear wax of Vishnu. This is essentially the paradox of nature. Nature, we worship as maa, is so neutral. It is like GDP. It has nothing to do with the equitable distribution. It is focussed on growth. Nature is also oriented towards preservation and growth. When a new life form grows up, matter takes newer forms, Nature thrives. So, it is very obvious that nature does not have special favours for a particular species. It is very likely, that one day, Humans will be wiped out and a new and more capable species will take its place. 

The Demons start to chase Brahma, the god of creation. Natural growth is mostly a destructive creation. Whenever a new creation, a new form of material conditions takes over, the older systems collapse, the older conditions are demolished. In these situations, we find ourselves in a contradiction of theories. 

Materialist interpretation of history tells us that the movement of material conditions, or history, has to be oriented in a direction which we want it to be. But, on the other hand, Adhyatma, or spiritual doctrine states that we cannot win Maya, or the manifestation of material conditions over our lives. Nature manifests itself as maya. The only way is to do Stuti of Maya. How do you do Stuti of Maya. Let's dive in. 

Maya, a form of Devi, the feminine mystery, or a manifestation of nature, can only be understood as such. The Fortuna, of Machiavelli, comes to mind. A cunning woman, which wishes to create unfavourable circumstances for you. But does a mother wish to deliberately put inconveinient circumstances for her offsprings? Then? What may be the reason? The Stuti of Maya involves a surrender in front of the Divine mother, mother whom you always rebelled, mother who you never listened to, mother you always asked to exploit from, mother who always wanted your growth, only if you would have aligned yourself with Nature, and demanded less comfort would you have thrived. 

You have anger issues. How many times have you denied that? How many times have you tried to think that somehow, you are different from your material circumstances? Reminds me a Sher of Jaun Elia, the Urdu poet, 

है बशिंदे हम भी इसी बस्ती के,

तो खुद पर भी भरोसा क्यों करें हम?

How many times have you denied your own nature? How many times have you justified your ego, by denying it as self-respect? How many times have you called your ego as Swabhimaan? Your restlessness does not come from material circumstances, but from your choices. You suffer because of your false imaginations. You suffer because you like to suffer. You suffer because you interpret nature as against you. 

Come out of slumber. Do not give way to ego. That is the materialist spirituality. That is the Stuti of Maya. That is the Philosophy of war. Consider War as a spiritual surrender to nature. Mother nature, you gave me this anger, now let it be used by you for the things that you determine, not me. 

Not me, Idham na mum! 

Wars are not important. Fight wars, Or wage for peace, the actions are permissible. But the intent is where Adhyatma locates your cause of suffering. Why do you want peace? Ask! And you will realize, that maybe even in preaching peace, there is an ego involved. 

अजब माया है तेरी माँ की अक्सर, शांति की चाह में अभिमान हंसता दीखता है

Why do you want war? Introspect and you will realize that here also, is involved an ego, masked as the love for your country. Is it love because it is a country and a country deserves love? or is it loved because it is your country. 

This is what Arjuna is being told by Krishna on the battlefield, introspect, Do you want to not kill your grandpaa because Grandpaas should not be killed, or because he is "your" Grandpaa. "Yours" and "Mine" is the Language of ego. 

Come out of it. And then whatever you wish to do. Then you will not suffer. War is not bad. Killing is not bad. The intent should be pure. Justice, if is the intent, War is justified. If Nationalistic ego, is the intent of war, it is unjustified. 

This is the Stuti of Maya. This is the most correct philosophy of war. A war where first enemy that is killed is Ego of yourself. When you kill, bring Kalashnikov, that's fine. 

DUTY AND DESIRE: KRISHNA KANT

Philosophy and Spirituality are a lifelong commitment. It is not just another thought to be passed by. Thoughts have relationship with desire and Philosophy, with Duty. A dutiful philosopher, when we ask, We are reminded of Immanuel Kant. 

Amidst many apocryphals about his idiosyncracy, We find him extremely digilant in his meticulous work. Philosophers deal with another problem that is actually the worst fear of any average man. It is that, their work is not considered work by the typical popular ideology. But, A philosopher does not care. He is the epitome of what could be called, "Nishkaam Karmayoga" or Detached action. A spiritual monk or otherwise, is not at all at par with the Philosopher. Since, today, A spiritual Monk is an accepted job in the capitalist system, A philosopher is not. A spiritual master, and mostly all of them, are actually status quoists, this is exactly what Capitalism wants, puppeteers of desire. Whereas a philosopher, especially, a rebellion Philosopher, he can be of any leanings, He can be a strict radical leftist, like Slavoj Zizek, or a strict spiritual master like Acharya Prashant or Osho, a conservative like Gandhi. Unfortunately, the world has not seen much better rebellion conservatives after Gandhi. As if, it is mandatory for the conservatives to be bootlickers of capitalism and capitalist class.

Gone are the days of noble Conservatives like Edmund Burke, Tolstoy and Gandhi. Now we see puppeteer clowns just either relativizing everything or using Nihilism to save traditional religious and cultural practices. That's why I think Philosopher can never become an ideologue and an ideologue is strictly a conservative. An ideologue can never be a philosopher for a simple reason that he can never leave Rebellion. Rebel is not a Philosophy, rather as if a truth of existence. Re-invention is the way life keeps itself on Earth. 

Kant is the point of reflection of western philosophy because of what he did and what he wrote. People of India, Indocentric idiots as they are, say things like, Krishna already said what Kant said. To them, you know what you can say, I often say, "What Krishna said was in 700 verses, What Kant said took him 10 books." So, if you are someone with more than 2 braincells, and not filled with some stupid Pride towards your religion or culture, you will ask, what else has he written? How did he arrive at conclusions that he had arrived? What made him such a moral dutist in his Philosophy? 

And if you are a little bit honest about Gyan, you will even try to inquire this, "What was Krishna's argument for reaching conclusions that he did. But the false God worship of an erstwhile intelligent human being, made Krishna out of the point of debates of Philosophy". 

If Indians wish that their discourses should be included in the discourses of Philosophy, like Vedanta and Geeta, they need to first, shut their mouths of arrogance, their false god complex, their imaginary "Vishwaguru" self-perception. 

If a serious discussion is to be held between Kant and Krishna, it has to be like two people of equal footing. Krishna is no god, he can at most be a philosopher, that too, will be decided by the level of his arguments. It will not be a discussion, undemocratic by nature, between a student and a teacher. Kant is not lesser than some mythical blue dude of 10000 years old. 

Here is an example where I think both of them can learn from each other's discourses. 

First, the Kant's Deontological discourse, summarized in a sentence, hard as it may be, is "Morality is not a discretionary activity, it has to be done dutifully. As to what is moral, is also a duty of the man to decide, but Duty is the base. Everything has to be done like a duty" 

Krishna says, "Niraashi Nirmamo Bhutva..." or Duty has to be done with a certain hopelessness, a certain desirelessness. 

Krishna is here, complementing Kant, by putting another layer to Duty. Duty without desire. How to do Duty without desire? Krishna, with his manipulative God complex, says, "Yat karoshi, Yat Naashi, Yajuhosi, Dadasi yat, yat pashyashi Kaunteya, Tat kurushwa Madarpanam", or "submit your actions to me, your duties to me!" 

Zizek asks a wonderfully engaging question, "But if the God is evil, and his intentions are evil, is the job justified?" 

Arjuna did not dare ask this question to Krishna. Krishna would have been stumped. Because, even he knew that there is no God. Krishna knew about God as a non-existent entity. He made up all this just to make Arjuna fight. This was a manipulation, a deception of the blue-skinned man. 

Kant would have helped Krishna. Kant's Maxim that the Duty itself should not be at one's fancy, but to the submission of morals. And decision as to what is Moral is in his Universalization Maxim. And also, in his Maxim of duty itself. It is your duty to do what is moral, and also it is your duty to decide what is moral. Correct decision is a job well done and an incorrect decision is a job ruined. 

I see, Krishna as Buddha and Kant as Acharya Nagarjuna. Every Krishna needs its Kant. 

Every Buddha needs his Nagarjuna. Madhyamik Shunyawaad is not just another Philosophy. Buddha would have bowed down in front of this Great master, Acharya Nagarjuna. 

This is the nature of truth. The truth giver and the truth asker are on the same footing. There are no gurus, there are no Gods, only seekers. Krishna would be one. Kant was one. I am one. This false Godification is the deed of the weak, the person of desire, the person who wants an imaginary figure to somehow work for his desires. Krishna did not work for his own desires. How will he work for yours? 

"I repeat. There is nobody. Nobody will come to save you. You are alone with the abilities. You are alone with yourself. You are enough with yourself." 

And a more uplifted person does not worry about the solitude. for him, the perspective of worry is about if the actions and duties are on track or not. He is not evoking false gods. He is not busy contemplating about Fate theories and how social conditions are stumping people or the desire list of success. He is busy working. He is in an undead state, a state of Death Drive or Todestrieb as Freud would have put it. 

A man at action, a man at Nishkaam Karmayoga, is like an undead Zombie. He is not living life. To live life is to indulge hedonistically in its pleasures. To die is to run from it. To be undead is to be in the middle, where you are not living but working towards a goal. 

Death Drive is how to live life, Nishkaam Karmayoga is Death Drive. An obsession that takes away all other small desires, whether you want a good wife, a good job, a good salary, a good this and a good that. Death drive is in the eyes of a workaholic pushing his limits. The Tej in his eyes is what Freud called Death drive. It is better than the drive of life. Living drive is stupid, it is just, let me eat, let me save myself, let me enjoy and let me reproduce. This is for animals. Death drive is for humans. 

Here Freud is needed to explain Krishna. Without Philosophers, Spiritual masters will be lunatics blabbering. That is why, I say, it is high time, Indians should leave their Indocentrism and keep a neutral stance towards Europe and India. Both are knowledge systems and needs equal respect and engagement. As, Eurocentrism is just 200 years old. Indocentrism has histories of 1000 years. 

LACANIAN SYMPTOM, VIBHISHAN AND RELATED OBSERVATIONS

Recently, I read a book by AS Dulat on Kashmir politician Farukh Abdullah and related Kashmir issue. And then Abdullah called AS Dulat, the famous Ex-RAW chief as the Ghar ka Bhedi. This allegation is not new to me. The reasons Abdullah cited were not about Falsehood. It was about Truth. Why did he divulge the truth was his problem. Like, one of the facts, that he wanted Article 370 to be removed. Dulat, with his usual composure, said, I said the truth. If truth shall destroy friendships, I hope not, but if yes, let it be. I think I witness this a lot. I will explain. 

My Friends had given a very good argument regarding exposing the identity of people around me in the name of theory. I also think it comes in the purview of doxxing. So, hence onwards, and already I am doing it, without exceptions, I will not divulge any names of people and what they do. Henceforth, any names I take, will be made up but the acts they do will not be of course. 

However, there is a good observation even in this incident. I was noticing the circumstances when my friends tried to tell me how taking names can harm me in future. I appreciate their concern, it is justified but the intent behind this could be dual. 

It's like the Lacanian Symptom. Let me explain. 

Suppose there is a husband who is angry at his wife, furious, because she cheated on him. What Lacan says that it will be a matter of psychoanalytic enquiry whether the wife had some issues of mental health or not, cheating is not necessarily always pathological, but Anger is definitely pathological. 

So, even if the anger is justified, does not make the anger a normal thing. It is always an imbalance, a symptom of something deeper, something more gruesome, some deeper disease. So, the husband without even enquiry, Lacan says, is not mentally stable and not that he was stable before the cheating, he was never stable. He had always in him the potential, the symptoms just came out after the cheating happened. 

Women might cheat because of some systemic repression of their sexuality, but for men, the sexual side is not repressed systemically but the anger is. This will require us to understand how repression happens. 

First of all, Repression is not suppression. Simply suppressing emotions is not repression. Repression is a sub-conscious phenomenon that is often triggered either by the social conditioning or the conditioned self itself. 

For example, Male inexpressiveness is not a repression phenomenon. It is not pathological. While women sexuality is repressed. How do we know that? We know that because In case of male inexpressiveness, Male mostly does it consciously, the task of inexpression. He is in full awareness that he is not expressing himself. While the women sexuality is repressed from her childhood. Any attempt to somehow get a pleasure is demonized. Women orgasm is highly tabooed and A women wishing for her pleasure is often considered selfish and hence given names like Rand, prostitute and other such names. 

A woman, highly skilled is not recognized in the male gaze. Anything that contests male ego, is deemed invisible. For example, a free woman, a lunatic woman, a mentally unstable woman, was never recognized in many conservative societies. As if, women are not allowed to be disturbed mentally. They will be deemed as someone demonized, possessed or something. Some supernatural entity is required to justify the irrational behaviour of woman. 

If anything, we understand by any pattern of oppression, be it patriarchy, or be it racism, or casteism, It is the oppressor which is pathologically ill, the oppressed may or may not be. and here comes the concept of social justice. The oppressed has no opportunity to come out of the oppression because the oppressor is a mentally unstable person who thinks he knows what is better for the other person. 

Coming to the issue, my friends, they are concerned about me, but deep down, I see a pathology, a defense to protect their ego. A pathology to escape judgement. A pathology to keep themselves as a victim of society. 

This symptom is characteristic of under-achieving brilliant people. They are not successful yet, but they are brilliant people. I am included in this category hence I am self-implicating here. People like me, and my friends are like me, often critique the society as it is, but when a certain possibility comes where they could be at fault, they show the typical offense to the criticism as if, at that moment, there is no difference between some village uneducated idiot and this Mathematics honours graduate. This is the pathology that I am talking about. 

Education and academic brilliance decide a lot of things except character. Character is the choice of decisions that you take when the stakes are related to you. You can be an agent of change for yourself. Every criticism can be a way to improve. But also, every criticism can be a way to increase your insecurity. Unfortunately, my friends have only increased their insecurities in my presence. Hope someday they achieve success and go for some professional help, some CBT, something, where they realize that I was not treating them as guineapigs, but I was being a friend, someone who assists you in your path to freedom. Freedom, the most beloved entity to mankind, which frees you from yourself, when you start treating yourself like you treat others, the indifference to self, the unbiased equality between you and other. 

Everywhere, when I see, I see people suffering with some or other mental health. How do you suppose about me to just keep looking at them and not do something about it? I try to help close ones, and I feel the close ones are ones who consider me a traitor of sorts. Some days back, when I criticized a senior of mine, he called me indirectly, Vibhishan. Although, I share a part of my name, Like Vibhat, Vibhishan, seems same only :) 

But the deeper lying issue remained unaddressed. A theorist, a thinker never critiques in vengeance, always to help. But unfortunately, people are not willing to change. That's why I am politically not in favour of changing hearts of people. 

I see couples around me, Fighting, parents fighting, a man and a woman fighting. They do not realize that the fight is really a sexual fight. Most of the fights of opposite genders, between sons and mothers, between father and daughters, between Husbands and wives, are sexual in nature. 

They complain about the behaviour of the other gender, but in somewhere in the sub-conscious, they project some or other sub-conscious sexual urge. Like, the Indian construct of Mamta, what is this but just a Sexual fetish glorified. Let me explain. 

So, in patriarchal system, which is a glorified name of savage jungle, relation between a man and a woman, say your father and mother, is mostly ruled by biology and seldom by love. Societal norms facilitate natural evolution and men and women are not individuals but agents of evolution, some objects, gudda gudiya, who are made to copulate. So, after sex, and 1 or two offsprings, the male is mostly unattractive to the female since the body became undesirable. The primal urge to copulate is over. Now, the woman is unattractive as well. And that was all the so called "Love" that was. A sexual copulation. But the women aches for the sexual chemistry which the male cannot provide now, because sex is done. Now he has no incentive to interact with the female. So, she finds a smaller version of her husband, her son, and tries to create circumstances where a conflict occurs. It is well known that conflicts fuel sexual desires. That's why men and women fight, your mother shouts at you, brothers and sisters fight and may be sometimes, a latent homosexuality is there, that's why male friends fight. 

I see around me these people I find, this is actually those emotions, human beings are fetishists. They are experts in making different emotions and names to explain the same feeling. The primal feeling is sex, the names, whereas are multitude in numbers, Prem, Vaasna, Vatshalya, Karuna, Daya, mamta, etc. 

Sometime back I once said to my friends, that I write, or for that matter, anybody creates something because he is not well. He is pathologically incomplete and unstable. He could not fight completeness in the world of God, so he has to create something of his own to feel complete. And the retaliation that I faced. I sometimes wonder, "are they not observing the way they defend the insecurities? Are you not observant enough the way their egos act out? Are they not aware of the fact that merely by accepting the bizarre thing that I am saying, they can open a possibility to a newer self, but they choose to defend themselves. 

I guess, mental instability, when becomes a norm, mentally stable people sound arrogant, sound like Vibhishans. They were born like lunatics, and unfortunately, they will die like ones too.  

But, may be, sometime in future, My writings will help someone who will be striving to understand the bizarre world around him, and why people are so retarded. He will get it by reading my writing. I do not claim to be the best doctors, when the Upanishads are present, Astavakra Geeta is present, when Dhammapada is present, Geeta I don't take the name since it was, in my opinion, somewhat pathological too, I will explain this in some next blog, So yes, if these are present, who cares, what some Vibhishan writes. But, I have the answer, someone like me, someone Vibhishan, some Ghar ka bhedi, someone who keeps morals and principles above the parochial visions of selfish friendships and family and kinships, will get a solace in my writings. Someone who has hopes for a better society, where everyone is treated alike regardless of family affiliations, and friendly ties, Where these relations are not fueled by selfish motives but for freedom and freedom sake. Till then, My own mental instability will keep going and I will keep writing. This is the Grand psychoanalytic project, in terms of Freud. Freud must have been a Vibhishan himself. Anyone who values truth above selfish motives has to be a Vibhishan, it is not optional, but imperative.