On the two faces

I wish to address this double play of two faces I most often experience personally or in the society around me. All of us express ourselves differently and uniquely to our fellow men to convey something; maybe to create a good impression, show a sign of thoughtfulness, acceptance, good or bad mood, but most of us do not realize that they all are short-lived, the expressions and the signs.We also do not realize that the other party couldn't care less about us once the moments have passed. (unless, of course, one has a gripping face with a soul-stirring expression). They are like the brief poses for a photograph; every one of us look good in our photographs. And it is surprising to see how one could judge someone from their facial expressions that last no longer than two to three seconds. I do not believe in first impressions! And the importance we place on it and our continual efforts for improving the looks to create a good first impression could not be explained in a better way than taking a look at the tremendously successful cosmetic products industry.

In reality, we all have two faces; the outer one which is visibly static, and the inner one which is actually dynamic.

The outer static is intermittent as in expressing a smile or a frown at any one we come across for a moment or two. (Well, in some cases it happens to be minutes, hours and even days, that's a different case.) The outer static, I think, is a result of two things: One, a combination of basic human instinct and social conditioning: basic instinct to gain acceptance in the larger tribe or society through favorable expressions, emotions and behavior, and the conditioning by civilization and society to always look good  to others, to show that someone is in good mood and spirits. It is merely being presentable to others, to show to others that someone is approachable at that moment for whatever reasons, a conversation, a favor, a company etc.; a brief sign of apparent good look for entry into his/her circle. Basically, it's a sign of social development that a human being should look good to his fellow men so that the others will be so too for whatever that may follow the initial signs of acceptance and entry. I do not intend to talk more about this part, for things like the 'studies of the effects of human civilization and social development in the need for personal physical beauty and presentability' are way over my head!

Two, and this is a dangerous thing, a worthless feeling that we feel good when we look good. In reality, we should be feeling good when we actually feel good inside, or at the most, look good in our own eyes, not when we look good to others! I know this defies the basic law of physical attraction, but there is a reality hidden in it. I find it difficult to understand what makes people believe they feel good when they look good to others,of course, apart from the momentary recognition/acceptance of the presence of a fellow being, as said earlier. To my understanding, the only ones who should be feeling so are the people in the cosmetic products industry because they need to make their customers look good! Everything here, again, is a simple sign of wanting to be accepted by others. Nothing to be said here beyond this.

What I really like to think about, and talk about, is the inner dynamic face. This should really be the face that should matter most to an individual. It shows one's state of being to oneself, not the state of looking to oneself or others. It is dynamic because it is made of the thoughts that flow from one's mind, thoughts that are either connected or distinct, continuous or discrete, structured or random. It is dynamic because it always looks to correct itself based on its experience with other forces inward and outward. To me, the dominance of the state of inner dynamic over the outer static is in a way an indicator of feeling of self-worth and self-esteem. One should realize how one feels when he/she feels good at (for) himself/herself and when (if) he/she thinks he/she looks good to others. If and when there is quite a leak in the former, it doesn't matter what others pour unto him/her because of his/her looks, because what he/she tries to fill then is a leaking cup of self-worth with the contents of others' opinions.

There is a clear danger of the increasing importance placed nowadays on the outer static than on the inner dynamic (now more than ever, because of the explosion of social networks) by people who anxiously spend most of their waking day to know what others think of him/her, to know who likes them (actually 'their photographs') etc.. How the worthless importance of the outer static slowly creeps on the inner dynamic is quite stupefying if one takes time to realize the same. I have done so, and still do, and everyday brings an understanding of the pure waste of time on the same and the need to avoid it. The consequence of this would be overlooked if one does not realize how much of the time and effort that could be spent on introspection aimed at self development is driven away into unproductive knowledge of one's time-killing activities to be liked by others! (Guilty as charged, I feel stupid for the time I have wasted on it so far. This could be read as a confession of the same, and an indication of Exodus from it!)

What is increasingly happening is the dislodging of the once-undisputed belief that one's worth was from what was within that person and not from without (i.e outside of him/her), the kind of belief that earlier civilizations had on the days of their influential philosophers, thinkers, writers or anyone on those lines; The likes of Socrates, Pluto or anybody from those ages to our present era. From what we know/see from eras of art, portrays, busts, and what not, is that Socrates, probably, was not handsome, but he could not have cared less , nor could his followers have. What seemed to matter, then, to himself and his fellow men was the overflowing wisdom from within their minds, hearts and souls, and what their followers revered them for.

What we have in our generation is a silly belief that "Face is the index of the mind", yet completely misreading it. Sometimes, we also read it as "Face is the index of others' minds"! We all want to look good, to be thought beautiful and handsome, to be praised by others, to be spoken of by others. And the lengths we go to to present ourselves as acceptable by others is stupefying. If face really was the index of one's mind, what do we need the cosmetics for? Or, if face really was the index of others' mind, then where is our own view of ourselves? Would we not rather we spent our worthwhile time and effort on building inner beauty (read 'self-worth'), on accumulating knowledge, on making the inner dynamic more beautiful?

What we think others see in us, inside or outside, is the very same thing as what others think we see in them. And almost always, both are wrong, and both have wasted precious time and effort in that false-belief! What we see of ourselves on our own minds is infinitely more important than what we see, or think we see, on others'! Think about it.

Rajaji.

On being straightforward

Happy New Year to everyone. Hope the year has started off on a good note. May all your dreams come true.

When I was penning down the 2011 wrap-up post and was running up things-to-do for this year, I saw that I had spent significantly less time on things I had wanted to write about, most of them being still in the draft stages. Sometimes I felt I'm going overboard for myself or at other times I lost some of those thoughts on the way. Some of the posts make me wonder where I picked up those crazy thoughts from, and make me consider the prospect of writing less number of posts on confusing and fleeting ideas, lest I should drive away the few merciful souls who take the time to read all that I write and comment religiously. But ironically, you're all the people who are there to bear the craziness I bring forth in all my thoughts! In that way, you're all my inspirations! Thus I welcome you to this year with the first thought-post!

I'm no fan of adages, and I find myself in no need or abundance to quote anything to others on how to live life, how to learn lessons etc. Anything I experience I'm sensible enough to keep it to myself. That applies to judging people in life too, and learning from them. That said, I do have opinions of people and their character, generally, but no one in particular. One such case of opinion is on being straightforward. I do not have any personal experience or lesson for me in life from being simply straightforward. But I think, the quality of straightforwardness is not being given its due recognition; as that of the base for two other qualities, namely integrity, which is a virtue, and honesty, which apparently is a virtue. (but who decides what is a virtue and what is not?). Though both are used interchangeably, I still hold my opinion that there is a world of difference between honesty and integrity. Here again is a conflict on two different and widely held opinions; one, that honesty is the best policy (Anon), and the other, that One should never be too honest, straight trees are always cut first (Chanakya). So, I leave it to the discretion of the reader to choose what suits him/her best. I only intend to opine on straightforwardness, which according to me is neither a virtue nor a vice, but simply a characteristic, unique and distinct in degree, in each individual.

By and large, there does not seem to be a majority for straightforwardness being perceived as a virtue or as a vice. The case for straightforwardness is one of 'brought up' from childhood, and may be of 'human instinct' too. The former I can talk a little about, but not the latter, since that requires a psychologist's opinion. I personally think there is quite a lot of social conditioning and conditioning through education on a child's mind about being straightforward. But beyond education, society conditions a child in numerous other ways also, which put together are weighed against education. Ultimately, what the child believes in and eventually wants to be, depends on which of the two has the most influence on him/her. I, for one, was influenced by the society, and still continue to be done so. And I wasn't spared of the troubles of the mind and the heart in choosing one way over the other. The question is not on the universal agreement that it is primarily a matter of perception, but it is one of 'perception in whose eyes'? It is essentially asking oneself 'Am I characteristically, and by nature, straightforward in my own eyes, or am I wanting to be perceived by others as straightforward or not?' And consequentially, 'Am I holding my integrity, or am I just wanting to be honest?'. This is the typical situation most siblings find themselves in, when it comes to protecting their little one from their parents for some misdeed or the other, and the situation extends itself into friendship during the growing years of adolescence and eventually in all relationships into adulthood. While protecting them or not is a matter of self-righteousness (Why should I feel bad for saving/not saving him/her this way?!), the trigger for that is the effect of moral education and social conditioning on the upbringing of that child.

From another prominent angle, I think most often straightforwardness is perceived as rudeness. I'm not sure whether being straightforward is characteristic of the heart or the mind, but it is generally not considered a good thing to speak openly what one feels/thinks. Some flavoring is always desired irrespective of the audience.This again is driven from the early years of conditioning in the name of social manners. This takes the most common form of gossiping or backbiting about someone to someone else, but pretending to be good to him/her in person. Thus, from the point of view of society, there is no definite answer to 'what does being straightforward lead one to?'. It's largely a matter of individual preference towards a society of either active, spirited, like-minded people, or a society of dead-men-walking.

Secondly, on a smaller scope: beyond a point in life, once the trust radius of people is definitively set, it doesn't really change things in any way by being blunt and straightforward to both the trust radius and the outsiders, i.e. those outside of the trust radius. In such an environment, being straightforward does maintain the vitality of the individual in terms of active agreement/disagreement with the insiders and outsiders alike, and thus toward a spirited defiance of one's freedom of choice. Simply put, as some say, "Be yourself. For those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind".

Having considered the society at large, and then the smaller trust radius, it is apt to talk about the individual and the ego. We are all egoists. We are all selfish. We are all simply human, after all! Uniqueness, being the universally unique character of each person, grants everyone unique and distinct ways of protecting the ego! One such is being straightforward, where the individual is 'as-is' and shuns any degree of relatedness and connectivity with others' thoughts, feelings and actions. In that way, I believe it is rightly helpful to be straightforward, for in straightforwardness there is a degree of opacity for an ego to protect itself, rather than being a mirror to others' thoughts, feelings and actions, by aping and imitating others, particularly their ways of social behavior. But does being a mirror help in any way to maintaining the independence and freedom of one's own conscience?

I agree this is sounding more like a principle of individualism. But, whatever be the case, being straightforward does boost the self-esteem in one's own eyes. If one cannot be straightforward within, one can never be straightforward without! And if that isn't the virtue of integrity, what is?

Inspiration

I had an unsolved mystery about inspirations for a long time. ‘Are inspirations ephemeral?’ I used to ask myself time and again. I can hardly recall any experience then, where my inspiration lasted beyond two days at a stretch! I had tried developing and instilling a thought or two on the lines of the inspiration which triggered them in the first place. I failed all the time. It was long before I experienced and felt, finally, that all inspirations are ephemeral but those driven from within. I don’t see a reason why an inspiration should not be the source of internal motivation. After all, what inspiration essentially does is that it triggers the hidden inertial energy to motion. The cause is internal and the effect is driven from within too.

That inspirations are primarily non-material is the biggest discovery of my life, though they may drive downstream material goals. An inspiration is no more than a spark in that it fires the inner fuel at the right time. What follows as a result is that the concentrated and channeled thoughts are given shape by the spark and become visible to us through its tremendous energy and action.  If inspirations were to emanate from a source, then that source has to be infinite and transcendental, for it is impossible for something by itself to generate different motives in each one of us. That each of us gives a different angle to our actions is because of the fundamental difference in perception, and that perceptions differ across each individual is the ultimate evidence that each of us is as unique as the rest of us. So, essentially, the source of inspiration is unlimited by space, time or any other infinite measure in comparison to our short life. And that is precisely the reason my inspiration most often comes from nature and the natural life surrounding me; from the sunrise, from the early morning dew, from the blooming flower, from the drizzle to the pouring rains, from the waves and tides, from the sky, the clouds and the stars. I also feel it in music, in the wisdom of the philosophers, and much more. All these, needless to say, are unlimited by space and time, and are infinite in comparison to our short lives. These trigger some internal thought process in me that takes a cue from the natural design of things, develops a thought and puts it into action. And thus they become the true source of inspiration to me. This is from my experience with the quest for the metaphysical.

Coming to the physical and more haphazard, I have a problem with the self-help books. That one can derive continuous streams of inspiration from someone else’s experiences and discovery in life is simply unacceptable to me. As I mentioned before, a true source of inspiration can never be from a thing that is limited by time, space or any other measure of finiteness. What we truly mean when we say a person or a thing is an inspiration to us is that there is a characteristic or a quality in that individual or thing which is infinite, transcendental and unlimited. That Albert Einstein is my inspirational figure essentially means there is a certain quality of his which was unlimited in scope, his creativity and thought. That Abraham Lincoln is my inspirational figure truly means there were more than one quality, perseverance, integrity etc. that stood the test of time and resulted in historical glory for himself and a source of inspiration for millions like me. To reiterate, these are qualities that we all have but which are dormant all the while. A thing, an individual or an action that is not part of us triggers this from within us. Personally, I think it is but futile and silly to ascribe a permanency to an inspiration from a source outside of one's self.

Finally, if one goes by the universal adage that ‘God helps those who help themselves’, the self-help books are a waste of time and against the devotion to their self, and ultimately to their God. (That I’m an atheist is a different matter, but even if I were to construe a God, it would be my own ‘self’! And this I take as substantial evidence from the words of the second best God, next only to myself, Krishna, who I could see as nothing more than a man with profound wisdom and common sense to say 'Your self is your God; and that is me!) Self-help is not to be found anywhere but in the self. If there was someone to lend a hand, literally and metaphorically, all the time for all problems one faced in life, I guess the receiver is nothing more than a machine which is driven by the thoughts and actions of someone else. If you feel a tinge of objectivism in this, I’m glad you’ve got my point.

If I feel like writing a ‘Part II’ to this, I sure will update.

P.S: This post is originally written for Akila's blog as my contribution to her column on 'Inspiration'. So, as such this in itself is an inspiration. I've tried my best not to generalize the concept and to stick to my personal thoughts and opinions on it. 

The struggle of the educated minds - an introduction

This post is a foreword to my views and opinions on the effectiveness of formal education which I intend to bring forth in detail in the near future.

My doubts on the effectiveness of the formal education system began to convert to certainties as the years drew closer to the official completion of the two-decade battle. And I've eventually found out that the system of education has indeed affected me negatively to a great extent, if not fully. Not that I would have acquired significant knowledge of any other kind by any other means of education, if not through the formal schooling and college education system. Still, the certainties come in the form that they've been only partially and very minimally successful, if I may call it a success, in imparting the right kind of knowledge. The flaw that I've felt in this mode is that it doesn't quite clearly put forth from the early days what is the right kind of knowledge that it intends to impart and how much of it (The Zeroth Flaw). Of course, it has the indubitable and perfectly compelling excuse of saying 'what is taught in class is very little and only theoretical, the actual learning is out in the world'. Agreed. But if that is the case, has the system at least made sure that it puts forth the right foundation? I am against this view. To me, this is obvious in the many dubious methods of teaching the theoretical foundations of some of the pertinent knowledge (that which is assumed and expected to be of use to everyone in the right sense of both pertinence and knowledge and on all the spheres of life).

I find it obvious that this has affected the effectiveness of using all that information and knowledge. Facts are facts. Facts are information. Facts are knowledge. But do we not find it quite odd that most of the times, these facts aren't of much use? It is not difficult to realize that we never put to use most of what we read/study/learn/acquire as knowledge. The best it does is that it brings some realization to a troubled mind that what is available is not always needed; and sadly, what is needed is not always available either.

It is in this aspect that the brain is severely crippled in handling the whole lot of knowledge, a mixture of all sorts; useful but incomprehensible and prohibited (The First Flaw), useless and unlawful (The Second Flaw), and dubious and immoral (depending on one’s views on morality, a topic for some other time). The more concerning matter is that it impairs the capability and outcomes of an individual in the society due to the expectations thrust upon him/her based on the universal laws of the flawed system, both in terms of misleading the individual to what level of knowledge is expected and what is the source of that desired knowledge. And the outcomes are disastrous sometimes.

The prime suspect in all this, I believe, is a false motivation. For a cliche, two of the most influential yet thoroughly misleading motivations in this aspect are thrust upon the child right from its childhood; 'Knowledge is Power' and 'Information is Wealth'. These two simple adages are so subtly and subconsciously thrust upon an individual like a slow poison, that the effects don't show up clearly until it is too late. These are like drugs that consume the mind of the person pushing him/her towards an irresistible ecstatic state and at one point driving the person to a condition from which there’s no way back. These have only complicated the existing system and continue to do so. The levels of irrationality, if I may call a spade a spade, that this extensive knowledge professes are so high that someone could easily tip over to blind beliefs in that knowledge and lacking complete reasoning to justify its usefulness or adoption to one’s life.

For example, in theory, motivation may be internal/external, positive/negative. Now just these two broad classifications (there may be more) bring four quadrants into the picture and a knowing mind is already in a fix as to where it draws its motivation from and of what kind it is.

More flaws on the way. Chaos prevails!