Sunday, July 23, 2006
Before the 30-something
As you approach the 30s, there is some self-reflection that you start doing sub-consciously. You are probably at a stage in life where the tumultous, proving-yourslef twenties are behind you, yet there is much to look forward to in life. As i approach my 30th year, what are some of the things that i can look back upon ?
1. One of the things is a well-defined value system, which continues to be variously captured in parts here. The 'perennial doubt' has subsided and while there are occassional moral dilemmas, which still challenge, the world-view is almost formed. One's identity crystallizes, and the sculpting has truly begun.
2. Another thing you understand is that you may not reach the pinnacle of your profession (career-wise). This can be a difficul realisation, espcially if you are fed the motivational jargon of 'you make your destiny'. Yes, numerous corporate success-stories circulate, but for every one success there are countless others who don't make it. So one is more comfortable - more emotionally detatched- with the annual appraisal, more tolerant of the late promotion etc. and the self-doubt 'am i good enough?' slowly evaporates. You begin to understand that at the end of the day, one has to be fundamentally decided about ones priorities and a 24*7 corporate life is not something you may want or even be capable of. The glamour of the "blackberry-wielding, jet-setting, business-class workoholic life" declines. You slowly realise the high costs your professional aspirations extract from you.
3. The third thing is the realisation - How one life or lifetime is insignificant in the greater scheme of things. What is this greater scheme ? Well, scientifically speaking the universe began some 12 cosmological eras ago (a cosmological era is 1 followed by the number of zeros in years counted from the birth of the universe. The age of the universe is approximately 12 cosmological eras- 10 followed by 12 zeros years*). The earth began some 4.5 billion years ago as a planet of one of the billion stars in one of the billion galaxies of the universe. It is incidental that life began on this insignificant little planet and through evolution and natural selection, here we are. Let us not forget the 'great extinctions' (e.g. permian extinction, jusassic extinction) in the past where more than 70 % of the earth's species have been wiped out. We are just a smarter-ape species who will perhaps reign for a few more thousand years, a mere flick in astronomical time, and vanish. A single person's life of this species thus, is quite insignificant.
We torture ourselves with existential questions. With our great quests of 'purpose of life' etc. While i am not degrading such pursuits, in the greater scheme of things, our life is not something that is going to change the course of the universe. This understanding and acceptance leads to calm.
4. Sometimes I wonder what happened to all those dreams as a youth ? Those irrational -dreamlike-wild-free times ? When exactly did i start to conform ? ("American Dream"/"Big Chill" style conformity). Somewhere the realisation hits that it was absolutely normal to believe what you believed in AT THAT POINT in time. It would have been very sad to have a youth unfilled with idealism/radicalism. It's not that you sold your soul, but you grew up and started realising a few things. I still respect those values, however the world-view is now more tempered, matured, nuanced. This transition is not unlike the making of wine. To make good wine takes time and the orignial tanginess of the grape. Without the original zing, it just doesn't become good wine.
There remain some unfulfiled dreams, and you become comfortable with the situation as you enter your 30s. At times there is a dull regret, but there is no longer the quixotic, at-any-cost quest for the same...
I am not claiming to be wise. They say that you really do not become wise till you have children. Maybe and perhaps if this blog lives another 10 years, maybe i will write my views at 35 or 40, and that may be a complete departure from what is written here.
Here's to the future...to the next 30 years !
*PS : A note about how the universe is going to end ? Well, of all the competing theories, i believe the proton-decay one. Due to energy loss, all the protons in the universe will decay in some finite time. This time is estimated to be approximately 132 cosmological eras (that's 1 followed by 132 zeros in years).
1. One of the things is a well-defined value system, which continues to be variously captured in parts here. The 'perennial doubt' has subsided and while there are occassional moral dilemmas, which still challenge, the world-view is almost formed. One's identity crystallizes, and the sculpting has truly begun.
2. Another thing you understand is that you may not reach the pinnacle of your profession (career-wise). This can be a difficul realisation, espcially if you are fed the motivational jargon of 'you make your destiny'. Yes, numerous corporate success-stories circulate, but for every one success there are countless others who don't make it. So one is more comfortable - more emotionally detatched- with the annual appraisal, more tolerant of the late promotion etc. and the self-doubt 'am i good enough?' slowly evaporates. You begin to understand that at the end of the day, one has to be fundamentally decided about ones priorities and a 24*7 corporate life is not something you may want or even be capable of. The glamour of the "blackberry-wielding, jet-setting, business-class workoholic life" declines. You slowly realise the high costs your professional aspirations extract from you.
3. The third thing is the realisation - How one life or lifetime is insignificant in the greater scheme of things. What is this greater scheme ? Well, scientifically speaking the universe began some 12 cosmological eras ago (a cosmological era is 1 followed by the number of zeros in years counted from the birth of the universe. The age of the universe is approximately 12 cosmological eras- 10 followed by 12 zeros years*). The earth began some 4.5 billion years ago as a planet of one of the billion stars in one of the billion galaxies of the universe. It is incidental that life began on this insignificant little planet and through evolution and natural selection, here we are. Let us not forget the 'great extinctions' (e.g. permian extinction, jusassic extinction) in the past where more than 70 % of the earth's species have been wiped out. We are just a smarter-ape species who will perhaps reign for a few more thousand years, a mere flick in astronomical time, and vanish. A single person's life of this species thus, is quite insignificant.
We torture ourselves with existential questions. With our great quests of 'purpose of life' etc. While i am not degrading such pursuits, in the greater scheme of things, our life is not something that is going to change the course of the universe. This understanding and acceptance leads to calm.
4. Sometimes I wonder what happened to all those dreams as a youth ? Those irrational -dreamlike-wild-free times ? When exactly did i start to conform ? ("American Dream"/"Big Chill" style conformity). Somewhere the realisation hits that it was absolutely normal to believe what you believed in AT THAT POINT in time. It would have been very sad to have a youth unfilled with idealism/radicalism. It's not that you sold your soul, but you grew up and started realising a few things. I still respect those values, however the world-view is now more tempered, matured, nuanced. This transition is not unlike the making of wine. To make good wine takes time and the orignial tanginess of the grape. Without the original zing, it just doesn't become good wine.
There remain some unfulfiled dreams, and you become comfortable with the situation as you enter your 30s. At times there is a dull regret, but there is no longer the quixotic, at-any-cost quest for the same...
I am not claiming to be wise. They say that you really do not become wise till you have children. Maybe and perhaps if this blog lives another 10 years, maybe i will write my views at 35 or 40, and that may be a complete departure from what is written here.
Here's to the future...to the next 30 years !
*PS : A note about how the universe is going to end ? Well, of all the competing theories, i believe the proton-decay one. Due to energy loss, all the protons in the universe will decay in some finite time. This time is estimated to be approximately 132 cosmological eras (that's 1 followed by 132 zeros in years).
Sunday, July 16, 2006
"Relative" Values
The idea of "relative values" is complex (a culmination of serveral years of ponderance) that perhaps it cannot be easily elucidated in a single blog. I can perhaps try to do this in instalments in later posts.
Let me try to condense in a few crisp sentences, the general outline - I belive that there are some values that are absolute. "Everything" in the world cannot be "relative". If 'everything' is relative, then there can be never any logical discussion. In this scenario, any argument can be killed by saying "You are entitled to your views and i am entitled to mine, so lets just live with it. Your perceptions are different than mine." While that is a perfectly fair culmination to a wide variety of arguments (what music i like/what color i like), it is not valid for 'everything'.
I do not believe in relativism because it is defeated by the tenet of circular logic. Lets consider the statement "Every statement is relative". For it to be true, the very statement (Everything is relative) has to be an absolute statement. If EVEN THIS statement is relative then it falls prey to circular logic and there can be no truth. There have to be some absolute values somewhere.
There are some 'minimum ground rules' that humanity must have...if these ground rules dont exist, then humanity is nothing better than any other animal species. Living purely instinctually. If we as a species claim to have something more than technological prowess over other species (morality, culture, values, a civil society) we should agree to these basic ground rules which i call 'absolute'.
So what are some of these absolutes ? There cannot be too many of these absolutes...But will try to enumerate some of the ones that i think of :
Firstly, on a fundamental level, each member of the species has a equal right to life. This EQUAL right of life is fundamental barring extraordinary calaclysmic circumstances (like the prospect of annihilation of the species). I call this the 'right of survival'.
Secondly, every human being is free to hold an opinion. However, there are certain behavioural constraints in how an opinion is expressed. So long as, expressing an opinion does not infringe on the right to life of other members of the species, it should be allowed. No species-member has a right to impose one's opinions by the threat of annihilation to those who differ. Here, i mean not the right of life 'literally'. Harassment for holding an opinion should is not allowed either. Every member of the species should respect the 'free opinion' of other members of the species so long as their lives are not threated by the action of other members for holding that opinion.
Thirdly, species members have the right to act in self-defense. This is a logical conclusion of the first two postulates. If one's life is threatened by holding an opinion without first trying to impose one's opinion by force, one has an inalienable right of defending oneself. Species members are first advised to resolve their difference by examining non-violent means. There must be no effort spared here. However, if in the end one group resorts to violence, then the other group has every possible right to defend itself and it's point of view.
One very important postulate is that these ground-rules not only for individual members of species but even collectives thereof. These collectives can be nations, religions, races etc.
Let me take one example to illustrate my point. Though 'relativism' and 'tolerance' is a virtue, how do we deal with a group whose philosophy is "If you dont fall in line with my point of view, i will use force to bring you around. Either you agree with me or you will be killed". There are enough extremist fringes in any divisive-enough issue (abortion, clash-of-civilisation, homosexuality etc) who will kill and maim to get everybody around to their point of view. And this is not some abstract discussion. It unfolds as ugly reality on CNN every day of the week. We have to accept that there are people out there who will kill other 'species-members' if they do not believe with their point-of-view.
The point is this : Liberals assume that their believes of tolerance are shared by all of humanity. This is a deeply flawed assumption. Tolerance and relativism is a virtue which is not shared by all. This unsure moral dithering leads to psuedo questions like "Both the terrorist and the soilder are fighting for their beliefs, so who are we to say who is more righteous."
The terrorist is wrong 'absolutely' because he is willing to kill species members for not agreeing to his point of view (Absolute rule 2). The soldier is acting in self-defense (Absolute rule 3). Obviously, the world is not so simplistic, however it underscores the point.
Hence, "everything" is not relative. I for one, believe in some absolutes. More later.
Let me try to condense in a few crisp sentences, the general outline - I belive that there are some values that are absolute. "Everything" in the world cannot be "relative". If 'everything' is relative, then there can be never any logical discussion. In this scenario, any argument can be killed by saying "You are entitled to your views and i am entitled to mine, so lets just live with it. Your perceptions are different than mine." While that is a perfectly fair culmination to a wide variety of arguments (what music i like/what color i like), it is not valid for 'everything'.
I do not believe in relativism because it is defeated by the tenet of circular logic. Lets consider the statement "Every statement is relative". For it to be true, the very statement (Everything is relative) has to be an absolute statement. If EVEN THIS statement is relative then it falls prey to circular logic and there can be no truth. There have to be some absolute values somewhere.
There are some 'minimum ground rules' that humanity must have...if these ground rules dont exist, then humanity is nothing better than any other animal species. Living purely instinctually. If we as a species claim to have something more than technological prowess over other species (morality, culture, values, a civil society) we should agree to these basic ground rules which i call 'absolute'.
So what are some of these absolutes ? There cannot be too many of these absolutes...But will try to enumerate some of the ones that i think of :
Firstly, on a fundamental level, each member of the species has a equal right to life. This EQUAL right of life is fundamental barring extraordinary calaclysmic circumstances (like the prospect of annihilation of the species). I call this the 'right of survival'.
Secondly, every human being is free to hold an opinion. However, there are certain behavioural constraints in how an opinion is expressed. So long as, expressing an opinion does not infringe on the right to life of other members of the species, it should be allowed. No species-member has a right to impose one's opinions by the threat of annihilation to those who differ. Here, i mean not the right of life 'literally'. Harassment for holding an opinion should is not allowed either. Every member of the species should respect the 'free opinion' of other members of the species so long as their lives are not threated by the action of other members for holding that opinion.
Thirdly, species members have the right to act in self-defense. This is a logical conclusion of the first two postulates. If one's life is threatened by holding an opinion without first trying to impose one's opinion by force, one has an inalienable right of defending oneself. Species members are first advised to resolve their difference by examining non-violent means. There must be no effort spared here. However, if in the end one group resorts to violence, then the other group has every possible right to defend itself and it's point of view.
One very important postulate is that these ground-rules not only for individual members of species but even collectives thereof. These collectives can be nations, religions, races etc.
Let me take one example to illustrate my point. Though 'relativism' and 'tolerance' is a virtue, how do we deal with a group whose philosophy is "If you dont fall in line with my point of view, i will use force to bring you around. Either you agree with me or you will be killed". There are enough extremist fringes in any divisive-enough issue (abortion, clash-of-civilisation, homosexuality etc) who will kill and maim to get everybody around to their point of view. And this is not some abstract discussion. It unfolds as ugly reality on CNN every day of the week. We have to accept that there are people out there who will kill other 'species-members' if they do not believe with their point-of-view.
The point is this : Liberals assume that their believes of tolerance are shared by all of humanity. This is a deeply flawed assumption. Tolerance and relativism is a virtue which is not shared by all. This unsure moral dithering leads to psuedo questions like "Both the terrorist and the soilder are fighting for their beliefs, so who are we to say who is more righteous."
The terrorist is wrong 'absolutely' because he is willing to kill species members for not agreeing to his point of view (Absolute rule 2). The soldier is acting in self-defense (Absolute rule 3). Obviously, the world is not so simplistic, however it underscores the point.
Hence, "everything" is not relative. I for one, believe in some absolutes. More later.
