The storyline of my life

 

Suppose, someone has made a personal statement in his university admission application to the effect that if he were determined ,by the future,to join the university ,he would not be required to write the statement .If on the other hand the future is already determined that he will not join the university ,he need not bother to write the statement. Is he right in his action?

(Askphilosophers.org)

Difficult to say .We are coming back to the same old theory of determinism or a universal causation which says that whatever be the proximate cause there is a universal cause which will lead to an effect which will ultimately determine the future. For example ,I am working in my office today at this point of time and I have a tiff with my boss. There is a strike in public transport which has led to my arriving late in office ,thereby causing a tiff with my boss and in a heated exchange of words I lose my job. Can I say that my losing the job is on account of my coming late and a consequent tiff with the boss ? My losing the job is an effect which can be traced to a proximate cause-the transport strike but if the circumstances had not already developed leading to a situation of the above type,my losing the job would not have happened. It only means that there is something in the total situation which contains the genesis for the present developments or something within my boss’s situation or within my own situation which eventually developed into my losing the job.

Sometime I feel that there is what I call a “storyline” in my life. If I read patterns in the events unfolding I get an uncanny feeling that I am slowly but inexorably being led towards the happening of some major events every now and then ,major movements in terms of their impact on my life . These movements happen all the time although everything that happens does not lead up to the next major event in my life. All my routine activities I perform are merely proximate causes but behind them there is a storyline , a movement which will lead to a denouement and a fall ,followed by another similar movement beginning to develop towards another major event. Thus my life is filled with wave after wave of movements towards some major events all of which could not have happened due to one or two proximate causes.

Is photography an art?

Q: What about photography, isn’t that art?

No. My position is that photography, which can indeed be a wonderful and excellent thing, is not actually an art form per se. A photographer can be more accurately said to “document” something by showing the audience exactly what was there (when well done, he does this using some of the same techniques that an artist might such as composition, selecting contrast levels, etc.) rather than recreating what was there in light of an expressive goal which allows a great deal of freedom to adjust what is there and how it looks which is unavailable to the photographer

Brian K.Yoder
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2003/Best_of_ARC/best1.asp?msg=108&forumID=18

We cannot agree with the view here. The assumptions here about what photography is themselves need to be validated.For example ,the photographer does not merely document what is already there.He searches out for that which furthers his vision and arriving there he expounds his vision which is uniquely artistic. Composition in photography is not a mere beautification device but arises out of the photographer’s unique vision.The photographer recreates ,just like an artist,”what was there in light of an expressive goal which allows a great deal of freedom to adjust what is there and how it looks.It is not correct to say that such a freedom is not available to a photographer. We are not talking about photo-journalism which perhaps merely documents what is .We are talking about the great photography artists like Cartier-Bresson whose photographs are as much an expression of a unique artistic vision as any painter or a music composer.

Irony of "double-think”

 The interesting question put here is why does one ask questions to which one already knows the answers ? It looks like we actually do not know the answers but only think we know them because in most of the cases what we have thought the final position has never remained the last word on the subject. Obviously in the world of constant flux there can be no final answers. That of course is a pretty obvious thing. But the bigger truth is not that the reality underneath changes but merely that is seen differently. Our eyes evolve over time and so does our perceptual thinking.

But what is most intriguing is the irony in our way of thinking. There is a constant “double-think” as we go along perceiving things and commenting on them. Right from our childhood we keep taking mental positions in reference to our fixed value systems derived from our family and culture but there is a subterranean dialogue which is going on within us which contradicts the surface .  There is nothing final about anything and as soon as we hear anybody saying the final thing there is a sardonic laughter within us born out the  silent hollowness experienced by the “within”- a kind of dramatic irony which dogs every step .This is what robs us of our sleep,the delicious inertia of  being able to accept any position as the final thing.

Is God all-knowing?

An interesting question raised here is if God is all-knowing He must be surely knowing that I am going to sneeze in the next five seconds and if I control my sneeze ,I have just changed the future.It means that He is not all-knowing.(Askphilosophers.org)
The funny thing is that this argument does not jell. Even within the limitations of the human logic we can easily demolish this argument because when we say God is all-knowing we mean He is really all-knowing.That is , He not only knows you are going to sneeze but also that you are going to control the sneeze and change the original course of events that would have happened if you had not controlled the sneeze.

Ask Philosophers.org

Is time stationary ?

Is time stationary, and we move along it? Or are we stationary, and time moves past us?(Askphilosophers.org)

Response from Peter Lipton

“On one view, time is a lot like another dimension lying alonside the three dimensions of space. On this view time doesn’t move: all times are equally real at all times, just as all parts of space are equally real from all places. But do we move along time? Well, we are in different places at different times, and of course we are at different times at different times.

According to another view of time, the present is privileged. As George Santayana once said, ‘the present is like the fire running along the fuse of time’. On this view, it looks like we are moving along time, and so is the present.”

If time is the fourth dimension, time does not move just like the other three dimensions. Do we move along time ? Just as we move in space in all the three dimensions (i.e.moving horizontally in space), we also move in the space-time situations (my room,where I am present, encapsulated in the time of now) .I move sitting in the same room into a different space-time situation in the next second. I may also be moving into a different space-time situation by changing into a different space .

The other view where our present moves in time like a spark running along the fuse of time as George Santayana said ,is a graphic description of how the present burns itself in a quick running movement towards the future. There we are moving inexorably through a series of time-space situations to a future which is end of all space-time situations as far as the experiencer himself is concerned.

What does the mind do in case it gets into a loop?

I have come across this interesting question in Askphilosophers.org. A comparison is made between a computer programme and our own mind’s working.Here it is not even a comparison but assuming that the mind works like the computer an attempt is made to understand the possibility of the mind suffering from a similar limitation that a typical computer programme suffers from.We are talking about the “error out” situations when the computer sometimes embraces the blue screen of death and terminates the programme that is running at that moment. In such situations what does the mind do ? Does the mind get into endless loops refusing to move ahead with the job on hand ? Of course whatever happens has necessarily to be a short term phenomenon and the termination of the programme may not lead to a permanent inability to run the programme but the current job is lost.

One of the answerers has talked about the availability of different modules and the temporary incapacitation of one module will limit the damage to the particular module or lead to another module taking over its functioning.

Here is something that comes to my mind . I am involved in a series of short term dialogues with different people and all the while I am wrestling with the inner logic to arrive somewhere .I pursue a train of thought aided by words and going along in uncharted areas of thought  not knowing where the argument is ending up.I come into fascinating new areas the existence of which I have been entirely unaware .I keep hearing the drone of the inner logic entirely mesmerised and go on undisturbed by the tiny inconsistencies creeping up with the hope that the bigger wave of logical totality will come and wash away the  tiny pebbles .Very often such a thing happens on conclusion but some times I do get into a loop or a freeze of thought I have necessarily to cover up in order to make sense to the audience. Here I am confronted by something like a creative block , a paralysed state of mind which refuses to proceed further.

In such situations the argument gets cut short and no conclusions are drawn -something like what the computer programme does in “error out” situations.

Art is a death-like experience

The human mind has this constant need to conform because it is otherwise free beyond any limitations that define structures governing human  activity.There is this need to be like everybody .The moment we are free we feel lost and disoriented in the vast wild wastes of logical possibility. Hence the defining structures.We always try to devise newer structures because we are afraid of being sucked into the uncertainty of the infinity,the kind of borderless existence that fills us with fear.Human existence is a matter of so much enclosed space with a dream which refuses to acknowledge contours. Art is a uniquely human endeavour to break down structures ,to demolish contours and become part of space which is not defined by any outlines. The only way such a thing is possible when the body disappears . Art is a death-like experience when the individual attempts to burst out of enclosed spaces.

Dance is an effort to extend  human existence into the infinity of space.When the dancer throws her limbs in space in her dance movements she extends the frontiers of her own enclosed space. The abstract artist demolishes the outlines of physical objects and abolishes form and structure in order to experience freedom. That is the only way one invents  freedom,the freedom which is hiding behind form and symmetry.When we dream on the side of our pillow we experience scary freedom ,when we disappear in the vastness of space . We have invented our God , a finite God with arms akimbo ,enclosed in the claustrophobic space of a human-like form because we are scared of an infinite God who is not enclosed in finite space.

Forgetting has a shape in the kingdom of transformation

For Hans Carossa

By Rilke

“Losing too is still ours; and even forgetting
still has a shape in the kindgdom of transformation.
When something’s let go of, it circles; and though
we are rarely the center of the circle,
it draws around us its unbroken, marvelous curve.”

First ,when I saw the poem I thought Rilke was being merely clever .With usages like “losing too is still ours” I thought Rilke was out of form.In the second line Rilke got back to his original form. So I think. Forgetting still has a shape in the kingdom of transformation sounded so much like an epigrammatic saying. But actually it comes out as a poetic image if you look at it closely.Reality is built by consciousness which works only by remembering .Things exist only if your mind perceives them. Forgetting things is consciousness not recognising reality which means that forgetting has no shape or feel but in the world of constant flux when matter remains the same but only transforms into other matter or energy forgetting does not mean things losing their shape or form .The forgetting of things continues to circle around us although we may not be the at the centre of the circle . We are not the centrifuges in which energy flows from the centre to the perimeter but the curve remains around us impinging on us.

 

Truth in art

My own perception is that there are words and words have a logic of their own . When you start off with an expression ,however banal it may be, the poet’s own mind carries on with the logic of the words which relentlessly pursue truth and lead it towards little known recesses of the mind which hide this truth. Now truth is a controversial word ,just like wisdom and you may swap one for the other. But the essential thing is there is a logic of all logics which starts with words and as they move they take you to fascinating worlds whose existence you have not suspected. But the question you will ask is :You are saying this higher logic or whatever logic you call it is truth but what is the basis for this ? Apparently everything depends on what you think is truth and if you believe  Truth is something verifiable with facts and can be demonstrated again and again ,that is the definition within the conventional sense.How do we know that there is no other logic or truth beyond the logic which governs our lives and the physical phenomena

Commentary

When you are alive , you are conscious .It is consciousness that defines your aliveness. The other way,it is aliveness that causes consciousness. When I experience something my consciousness is temporarily suspended in order to register sensations and record experiences .I have been thinking of why ,when I am typing this ,I am not simultaneously conscious of my typing. I have often found that I may have been subconsciously aware of the experiences I am going through but not all the time. For example I do a hundred things during the day but find it difficult to remember all the experiences when I try to recall them later. I have found over the years it is expedient to let another part of mind to offer a running commentary on what is taking place. There is a continuous drone in the back of my mind which is a kind of a background commentary offered by another part of my mind which makes me conscious. The sound inside is a persistent commentary which tries to synthesize my experiences and make some sense out of them before they are filed away.The commentary looks at the aggregates ,brings to the fore analogous situations, tries to read trends and look for meaning behind each of the transactions.

I have read Aldous Huxley’s statement somewhere that progress is never felt ,but only recorded. Of course he was talking in another context.In the context of what happens to the humankind over large tracts of time. In the evolution of human thought. The running commentary within us makes us conscious of the external sensations which tend to die away without being noticed and made sense of. I train myself to look at the world as I take my walks ,trying not to miss the fascinating sounds of life ,the fantastic  newer perspectives on nature ,the glory of unreal situations which will not repeat themselves. All this becomes possible only if the commentary goes on uninterruptedly while I participate in the drama of life.