Drops of Dew

In response to "Papers on Social Work in India"

        The basis of Society

  Cognito Ergo Sum. The western individualism of human beings derives from the
  identification of certain rights with every human being, the origin of these
  rights notwithstanding. Even though many a western philosophers claim to be
  snugly set in the evolutionary theory where human beings are merely the end
  product of natural selection, they do not lay stress on the artificial
  distinction between humans beings and animals whereby we restrict the order of
  rights merely to our species and not as a gradual reduction towards the lesser
  developed brothers in the animal kingdom. Wherein comes the cult of Animal
  rights and humane behavior to animals. It would be a calumniation to assert that
  western thought strays clear of kindness beyond the human order, but that is not
  the subject of this essay. On the other hand, those that ascribe to creationism
  have even less to justify as to the origin of rights. What then remains to move
  from individual wants to the societal values is the fine balance of individual
  rights and their interplay, the idea that "my being ends at my brother's nose".
  A complimentary notion yet again pertaining to creationism is provided by the
  Indian ideology of mutual duty as a basis of human society. Hindu religion avers
  that we are created superior beings with inherent duties towards our brothers.
  The philosophy aims at a deeper understanding of a man's motives and part in the
  society as a whole and development of individuality through greater
  understanding rather that individualism. Let us take a moment here to
  distinguish between the two. While individualism pertains to interpretation of
  ideas and actions from personal point of view and building up society by the
  balance in tension between individual interpretations, while individuality, as
  explained in Ancient Indian philosophy, is gained by an understanding of the
  social interpretations of facts laid down in the creed and the attainment of a
  balance with this credo realizing one's independence within the system. It is
  true that once all men in a society ascribe to the common creed of duty bound
  subsistence, the problem of equity and fairness is solved by definition. Take
  for example the problem of caring for a sick person in a hospital. It has been
  found that many patients in the US need emotional support as they wage
  personal battles against their maledictions, as the family members (with the
  exception of close relatives, who beyond a point are not enough of a support)
  find it the end of their duty when the person is duly hospitalized and has
  been peremptorily visited a couple times. The western response to this
  situation is the establishment of a polished nurse care system and integration
  of social work in the medical profession that provides the missing social net.
  Does not this bring the sense of duty on the part of social workers and the
  nurses involved? A sense of duty that I'd think is more tiresome for both the
  caring and the cared for than the chattering overbearing love of a loving
  family. The other response to this is that all actors involved function merely
  through the mechanisms of economics, which in my opinion, is worse. Even so,
  does the concept of personal duties rather than personal rights not simply
  shift the problem to the following conundrum: how and why men in a society
  would ascribe to a life of apparent constraint? The tool of religion that
  worked in ancient India is lost to the modern world. Besides, the other
  question of expression and exploration of the self, a question close to my
  heart, remains unsatisfactorily answered in such a society. What metrics
  determine the freedom necessary for personal growth, sensual and of the
  spirit? Does such a society not preclude the possibility of a personal
  questioning of the axioms of the society, even if through mere curiosity. We
  should be wary of donning an unquestionable body of thought as that.


        Error of absolutes

  "The line of demarcation between between the individualist and the
  self-centered is a very narrow one. Therefore, individualism as a major
  cultural value is not very reassuring". As a matter of fact, from pure
  statistical point of view, the line will be smudged in a majority of cases,
  making it harder to differentiate balanced integrity from destructive avarice,
  not just for the policy makers and implementers but for the perpetrators
  themselves, a phenomenon amply evident in our own world to anyone but the most
  myopic, with the global trend towards increasing influence of actions and
  decreasing responsibility for the effects, increasing anonymity in
  interactions and far too many discussions on the righteousness of various
  undertaken actions and virtually no concrete metrics to decide the case. We
  have discovered the Rice's theorem of sociology, every non trivial discussion
  must result in a deadlock of flaringly personal and futile convictions. Most
  dialogues are empty, and rightly, literature can accomplish nothing. On the
  other hand, the world envisioned as being run on a duty principle has the
  major flaw of an all or nothing transition from the world today - "Man must
  develop his power of reason to understand himself, his relation to his
  fellowmen and his position in the universe." What if most men fail to grasp
  the reality promised by the lord, as they are bound to do? Or only grasp it to
  some extent. Where is the anodyne of the common man?


        Insecurity for freedom

  Time and again I've read proponents of an alternate economic system tutelage
  how in our society, "The conditions for [a man's] self esteem are beyond his
  control. He is dependent on others for approval and in  constant need of it;
  helplessness and insecurity are the inevitable results." This is definitely
  true of capitalism. Further, it is a precondition of the whole capitalistic
  philosophy as it exists today which derives production through insecurity and
  insecurity in turn through consumption. Capitalism is like a giant wheel that
  keeps churning, with the axiom that men will opt out of labour without an ever
  present stick. "Pursuit of happiness" was never a part of this cogwheel, and
  can never be. That is not the function of economics. For happiness we must
  look beyond the daily travail. Ancient Indian philosophy states "that man
  alone who is lord of his mind can become happy and none else" I do not know if
  I agree completely. I feel that I'd be happy not through a control over my
  senses but through exploration and a sense of purpose, through the inner peace
  and love that Vedas talk of but also through the intrigues of discovering and
  experiencing. But there, I feel a misinterpretation (or at least under
  representation) on my part is somewhat to blame. Over and anon Indian
  philosophy avers the value of detachment from our actions and over and again I
  face her with my wish to savour attachment as well.


        The question of Ahimsa

  It is said in the ancient works that "paramaarth" is beneficial in the long
  run for the doer. Even if one does not follow any more the religious tool used
  to forward the hypothesis, assuming this axiom makes things fall into place -
  A society with all individuals holding this axiom can indeed be imagined to
  hold the duty ideal Except for evolutionary biology. How could one explain
  'ahimsa' to an evolutionary biologist? Why would nature select the strain of
  non violence in a species, when fight and flight are the basic response to
  natural dangers. Is 'Ahimsa' akin to timidity? Unless, the species evolved
  into a force so terrible that it was left with no competing life but their own
  brothers, and these individuals so strong that any confrontation is only
  detrimental to all parties. Are we come to the next step in human evolution
  where the individuals must internalize the knowledge of their superiority and
  the need for non violence as the final adaptation? Nature is faced with a
  tough challenge then, I think. It will be hard indeed for the right strains of
  non violence to survive this bloody epoch of human history.


        Control and scrifice

  Control of Indriyas does not mean suppression of desires. Learning is a
  continuous process. In fact, a balanced learning of freedom of desires and
  exploration without getting lost... avoiding suppression while not getting
  swept away most of the time. The golden mean? The animal in me - the one that
  will not be tamed. It will rear and find a tranquility with the higher.

  When someone sacrifices the self for the love of and ideal, it is not a higher
  love, it is a love for a ideal. That's where it ends. It is love for an
  abstraction and thereby affects larger geography and history; hence it makes
  sense. It is noble, not from some innate high-brow capacity but because it
  enables things movements that would not have been effected through more
  concrete love. It is higher in the sense that humans have the capacity for
  abstraction. In relation of abstract ideals, it seems more believable that
  there is nothing wrong with the society. We are a species with naturally
  encoded 'defects' we see. Everything can not be made to be 'ok' by solving our
  'problems'. I can not hold it as my aim to help people tackle better with what
  life on earth in the 21st century means. Perhaps, to enable a little more
  equitable society and to motivate a dozen to truly explore the physical and
  emotional limit in this lifetime.