Perhaps what they really mean is moral righteousness and if that is so, I am inclined to agree. I have no place for imperious self-righteousness in my scheme of things and am more than likely to avoid people who ride a moral high-horse - perhaps at times rather indelicately. Especially so when it is the kind of morality that is founded on principles that do not support a progressive and sustainable approach to modern life, and instead represents a clinging on to rigid ideologies or anachronistic religious teachings (many of which are actually invidious in today's context) or a kind of morality that arises from just plain old bigotry and intolerance. And yes, I'm saying that that is bad, in my personal, humble, highly subjective opinion. I just made a value judgment on a certain attitude or behavioural trait, but I am not condemning it to damnation.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
More on being non-judgmental
When people take positions in favour of being non-judgmental, don't they realize that that very act is judgmental in nature? It is tantamount to saying - being judgmental is bad, being non-judgmental is good. We make judgments all the time, as we spend most of our lives choosing (what we call) good over (what we call) bad, and this is part of being human.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Literature Uncut
There's this blog called 'India Uncut' by a guy called Amit Varma, that I have been following for a while now. Which means I go there every once in a few days and read up some of his more interesting posts. He's a pretty good blogger, and some of his posts are just great. I like his sharp wit and quite readily relate to his attitude and approach to things in general. Or so I thought, till I came upon this particular post.
Apparently he's written a book called "My Friend Sancho", and in this post he shares his perspective on various topics relating to journalism, blogging, writing a novel, etc. in the form of an FAQ to questions that, presumably, he is being asked these days by various people whose copies of MFS he is signing. Now Amit's blog does not have a comments section, so you can't comment on any of his posts. A rather inconspicuous 'contact me' button at the top right corner of his blog is a reader's only hope to get across to Amit if you have something to say. A few weeks ago (before MFS), I wrote to him wondering why he did not allow comments on his page. I'm still waiting for his response. I guess he's busy launching his first book and becoming an acknowledged novelist in the literary world. Good luck, Amit, I wish you the very best!
So here's the bit (in his post) that I wanted to comment on, and would have if he had enabled comments:
On why I gave up journalism
I felt that writing a novel needed me to devote myself to the fictional world I was creating, and weekly deadlines for columns and suchlike got in the way. I had to make a choice, and so I chose to give up journalism. The process of writing MFS confirmed to me that writing fiction was my natural domain, and I don’t intend to return to journalism now.
Also, writing columns and op-eds require a different mindset from tackling literature. In opinion pieces, one is expected to pass judgments on things, to paint the world in black and white. Literature gives us more scope to acknowledge the real world’s complexities, and to explore its ambiguities. I rather prefer the latter—you won’t find me passing judgement on any of my characters in MFS, or in future books. No matter who the character is, there but for the grace of the FSM go we.
On why my blogging and journalistic concerns are not reflected in my novel
I blog a lot about economics and politics, and my columns were also on those subjects. But you will not find me talking about these subjects in MFS. Indeed, reading MFS will tell you nothing about my ideology or my political leanings, which is as it should be. Literature is about human beings, and, to use a much-abused phrase with a pomposity alert, the human condition. A book that pushes an ideology is, in my view, not literature but propaganda. You won’t find any of that coming from me.
And my comment would have been:
Amit - I am not so sure that a piece of writing, to earn the right to be called literature, must necessarily abstain from any kind of ideological exposition. Agreed, there's (what you seem to call) propaganda (e.g., Das Kapital), and there's (what is generally called) literature (e.g., Pride and Prejudice) but there's also a whole lot in between these two apparent extremes. Just to illustrate, there's a whole bunch of existentialist writing - from Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Kafka to Sartre and Camus. Perhaps even Hemingway. Of these, Sartre's work comes closest to being an ideological articulation and formal definition of existentialism. Per your definition that would be propaganda. But the others? They've all produced some great literature (including Sartre), though the existentialist ideology shines through clearly, in their writings.
For someone who does not want to pass judgment on things (when writing 'literature') and does not want to paint the world in black and white (when writing 'literature'), you just did that, with these two neat boxes - propaganda and literature: never the twain shall meet. Moreover, I think I detect the faint but distinct whiff of moral righteousness here ... as though (what you call) propaganda type of writing is a 'bad' thing, and literature must stay away from it to be 'good'. Au contraire, I am tempted to argue that good literature always carries a fairly clear message and makes a statement about things. It may not be an ideology, it could just be a personal philosophy or approach or attitude. Just like your blogs. There's usually a quantum of social and/or political commentary embedded in good writing. While this element is not a necessary condition for literature to be good, its presence does not make it bad literature either. I hope to read MFS at some point, but I can bet that your next novel will be much better if you were to set aside this notion of propaganda and let your opinions and views reflect in your writing.
Having your own blog space lets you comment on other's posts even if they don't have space on their blogs to accommodate your comments. Thats a good thing about this whole medium. A great thing indeed!
Friday, May 22, 2009
Perspective
A friend sent me this link earlier today and at first I was not so tempted to go there (OK, mural mosaics, seen that before). Later, as I went there and browsed through the site, I was impressed by the detail and the combination of detail in perspective. I found many other mural mosaics at the site, and was amazed not only by the work of each individual artist but the eye behind each mosaic. Worthy of special mention is Le Cadeau du Cheval especially if you like horses as a subject or theme for painting or sculpture - or even just like horses per se. I was reminded, once again, as to how big pictures can be formed by smaller ones that don't, at first glance, seem to fit.
Try this out - click on each individual tile, to be surprised by what the stand-alone painting depicts and how, seen from a distance, it provides the visual element that is needed in the jigsaw at that spot. You need a special kind of vision to create such mosaics - the ability to look at something that is complete in itself from afar and see it differently, as part of a bigger whole. A lesson worth re-learning every time you come across something like this.
Summer Holiday
OK, back from a great holiday with family - we went to Singapore, Pattaya and Bangkok with the kids. The itinerary was mostly kids-centric and involved visits to nature parks, zoos, aquariums etc. with some other general sight-seeing thrown in. Stayed off-line as much as possible but couldn't help logging on for an hour or so every 3 or 4 days just to check important messages. Pictures are at my Facebook page. The Night Safari, the Jurong Bird Park and Sentosa island in Singapore, the Elephant show in Noong Nooch village (near Pattaya), and the Safari Park in Bangkok are 'must dos' if you're visiting those places with kids. Highly recommended. Also, time your visit in seasons other than summer, to avoid crowds and the summer heat.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Sense and Sustainability
In the light of the 3 great global crises we are facing at the current time - the global economic crisis, the global environmental crisis and the global security crisis, I propose that we introduce a new set of values and principles that will govern our natural impulses (which we have come to value). In this post, I am putting forward a rough draft - we need to evolve this further and set this as a foundation for a better life. While they may seem obvious and self-evident in a casual read, it should be borne in mind that while that might be so (nothing new is new is being said here, frankly), our educational systems - particularly in B-schools, do not impart these values to students.
The following principles, presented in the format "(x) over (y)", are to be read as "Value and prioritize (x) over (y)" and "Let (x) govern (y)". It does not mean that per se (y) is bad and undesirable, but that there is a higher good over (y) and that is (x), and that (y) should not be pursued at the cost of (x). Business schools today are mostly focused on encouraging (y) and seldom, if at all, mention (x) as a priority. And never as a governing principle over (y).
- Responsibility over Opportunity - exploit opportunity, but do so responsibly
- Assimilation over Growth - pursue growth, but assimilate as you grow
- Pace over Expediency - find the right speed for doing things, do not chase speed at the cost of other parameters
- Sustainability over Efficiency - look for the larger good in improvement, not just a short-term cheaper faster better approach
- Quality over Quantity - what cannot be measured is a bigger challenge for management, learn to deal with it
- Synthesis over Analysis - pursue analytical rigor but give due importance to other and more creative competencies
- Contribution over Achievement - ask what you have given, not just what you have achieved
- Wisdom over Knowledge & Intelligence - if knowledge is power and power corrupts, have the wisdom to not fall into this trap
I've posted elaborate explanations for each, under the same title at my other blog. Here, I decided to keep it short and skip the explanations. And as I said earlier, this is a rough draft. I would love to know what you think.
Friday, May 8, 2009
What part of left don't you understand?
One of my fav bloggers and humorists, Scott Adams (the Dilbert guy - in case you don't immediately recall the name), posted this yesterday. (You might want to go over to his post and read it first, to get the context to this post.) Scott has his own unique style and his own unique and special way of making his point. I respect his work immensely and sometimes try to emulate his writing style. I really liked what he had to say in this post, especially about 'confusopolies'. Of course, the debate on healthcare is pretty intense in the US, and for all the right reasons. It is a serious issue and Scott's approach, while in an only slightly lighter vein, accords due gravitas to it. His last para opens with the line "Before you call me a socialist, I don't have an informed opinion on national healthcare" and that somehow to me was like waving a red flag (pun intended) to a bull. Especially after having watched the run-up to the Obama election closely last year, and having winced every time I heard the word 'socialist' being hurled at him like an abuse.
And so I could not help commenting (to Scott):
Your "Before you call me a socialist ...." had me wondering why socialism, in America, is dreaded more than leprosy. Are socialists lepers?
In Indian politics, which is multi-partisan, we have a left, a right and a center (speaking in very broad terms). The bi-partisan US polity only has a right and a center. Well - some call it a left sometimes, but it is really a center. Why don't you have a 'real' left? Or does the concept of freedom have an exception (as in "embrace any ideology you like as long as it is not socialist")? I ask, with much interest, as a curious external observer.
Over the last 12 hours several readers have commented on Scott's original post - and the intense debate on healthcare nationalisation versus privatisation continues in its unabated fury. I scanned over 4 pages of reader comments this morning to check if there was any response to my comment, in particular. The only response I saw was:
@hyperactivex
What? The US has no real left? The US has ONLY left. We have a broken system that provides 2 parties. The parties of far left, and center left.
The US is supposed to be a republic (states rights), which is right of center. A good percentage of people in the US mistakenly think we are a democracy (center). While others want to push us toward socialism (way left)
Our founders created a republic for a reason. Less government, more freedom/liberty. More government brings less freedom.
So, since socialism is complete government control, it goes against everything this country was founded on. The founders viewed socialism as a fate worse than death. To quote John Henry, "Give me libery, or give me death"
So this is the view from the inside. OK. Sorry I asked!
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Let's call the whole thing off
Ever since I heard that Zardari and Karzai were scheduled to meet with Obama, it's been at the back of my mind to catch the news update on what happens in that meeting. Not that I thought that they would have an epiphany and solve global hunger or something, but to my rather simple and average mind it seemed like an important meeting (for the whole world, actually), which should have taken place long ago, but which for some inexplicable reason has never happened!
So finally the meeting took place today (US time, which was last night India time) and this morning I read this report from CNN and this report from BBC .... which pretty much told me more or less the same things - that they all agreed to unite to fight and defeat the enemy, defined as al-Qaeda + the Taleban. Somehow, I expected more that very obvious outcome, though I'm not sure what that more was. Or is.
On the other hand, I thought to myself, let's be kind to these gentlemen. Three different leaders with three different perspectives converging on the same topic ... are bound to need some time to agree on a common language first, before they can agree on a common problem definition using that common language. Which they need to do before they agree on a common solution to that common problem.
Noting that CNN says 'Taliban' while BBC says 'Taleban', and one hyphenates al-Qaeda and the other doesn't, I am hoping that this initiative doesn't go the way of the line in the song by Louis Armstrong - "...tomato, tomahto, potato, potahto, let's call the whole thing off". It's OK if the news agencies don't agree on the spelling as long as the leaders agree in spirit, if not in letter.
P.S. CNN deserves a rap on the knuckles for using the word 'waiver' when they meant 'waver', while quoting Obama. One doesn't expect such malapropisms from CNN. Maybe they should get reporter who wrote that to take the TOEFL!
He does it with mirrors
Gobsmackingly awesome story! I've always associated mirrors with narcissistic value, and in some unusual cases for entertainment value (in the form of magic tricks, illusions, trompe-l'œil etc.) But who would have thought that mirrors can also have therapeutic value? and that too based on the same principles as magic tricks / optical illusions. Well, there's this amazing professor who works with amputees to alleviate their 'phantom limb' pain, using ... hold your breath ... mirrors! Read on .. click here.
On a slightly abstract but related note, this is yet another instance that highlights the fact that sometimes the most complex problems can have the simplest solutions. Finding them, however, is another matter!
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
You know that a new technology has entered mainstream when .....
You know that a new technology, especially a new media technology (which expression is not, I assume, the same as a new medium), has entered mainstream when you start getting spammed on by the scum of the cyberworld - porn sites, on-line dating sites, penis enlargers, e-marketeers, et al.
I was really enjoying using twitter till a few weeks ago. I used to get the occasional unknown alien follower which I did not mind. But in the last few weeks, there's been this huge wave of followers for no fault of mine. And I do not kid myself about how great my tweets are or how popular I am. I think this is part of the Oprah Winfrey and Ashton Kutcher effect ... it sort of started after the week when Oprah tweeted her first tweet and aplusk beat CNN to the million followers mark.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
