Reptile

An emissery of misery once whispered to me,

In the hallowed hallways of my dubious beliefs,

To have trust in the strivings of a righteous man,

And never to don the ring adorning Gyges' hands.

Contemplate did I the virtues of such posturing,

Of the acouterments and platitudes overflowing,

For a conduct that rests on doubt and deception,

And a life that forebodes weakness and dejection.

Hemlock found its way into the purest of hearts,
Vanquishing in its path all of the entrails and hopes,
Of a man whose knowledge lay imbued in ignorance,
Whose pursuit of virtue tantamounted to arrogance.

For justice never reveals when it is sought the most,
Perhaps an end that disappears from pillar to post,
Eluding the beguiled as they trudge slowly in vain,
To loosely grasp what can be mumbled in disdain.

The victorious and crowned have sparkled and shone,
Across the ages with their machinations made known,
By the strangest of saints bejeweled in Medicis' frames,
Macabre in consequences, Machiavelli being the name.

Strike did he at the heart of the conspiracy of good,

Leaving righteous living as the infection of the fool,
A saviour in disguise defying the effeminate effrontery,

Echoed by the eunuchs of the divine and the academy.

Harrowing may be these words to the unworldy uninitiated,
Ill-advised and mal-adjusted to this mechanical revolvement,
And to ones with the blood of reptiles underneath their skin,
No greater good than to shed the veil and shine the evil within.



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Change

Of an age that seems to have slipped by,
And of the transformations one must endure,
It must be said that some things remain the same,
Just as Walter White was always Gray.

Strontium Ninety

When the merchants of bloodshed in fear,

Mongered to each other about prospects,

Of this cold world splintering into two,

One painted red and the other true blue,

The agency of the atom pointed to,

The scattered islands of the indigo Pacific,

For the salvation of the greatest nation,

Ever to pillage and plunder nature.

Sparkling lagoons and atolls and reefs,

Local folks who moved in tears and grief,

To north and south and thither of the test,

Or wherever the uniform said was best,

The people of Marshall Islands banished to,

Promised lands to end the world of wars,

And witness the lumiere spectacle from shacks,

In disintegrating skins and radioactive hats. 

To frighten the red enemy with heavy artillery,

Bomb clergy without the benefit of clarity,

Conjured fissions and fusions from Limbo,

Christening them Abel, Baker and Bravo,

Who lit up the skies and spread the ashes,

Far and between the spans of the planet,

Only to settle down and seep into those,
All that breathes and all that is born.

Yet the agency of the atom never much worried,
Whether these isotopes would remain tethered,
Only to the blackened sands and half-lifed hearts,
Of the locals both in rags and in uniforms,
Nor in their wildest visions did they imagine,
That planetary winds would carry this sewage,
Into the streets and curbs of Buffalo, New York,
And a child's dead bones in sunny Singapore.

Of the tragic cover-up and research that ensued,
On global circulation and deposition of radionuclides,
Or of the thousands of corpses bodysnatched for studies,
For the contamination of calcium by Iodine-131,
Or on the millions of clouds forewarned of residue,
Making billions of tonnes of food squandered away,
And shipped off to the third-world for half a penny,
One could write something yet remain a dummy.

The odyssey of Strontium-90 is a melancholic tale,
Of an unknown unknown making itself heard,
As it surged through the food chains and rivers,
Into the bowels of civilization caught unawares,
And as it bellowed out loud CANCER and DEATH,
Amidst pronouncements to renounce milk and sugar,
By officials who had endangered all of life itself,
The Earth still spun on its axis - still blue and pale.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Maud

In the only apartment on the thirteenth floor,
An old lady sits alone by the windowsill,
On a wheelchair scented with Betadine,
Brimful of cold Darjeeling tea within reach,
Her eyes gazing into the setting Sun,
Glimmering with the hope of Armageddon.

In this place called home where she's lived,
For years and years on telephones and letters,
Postcards and diaries and wet handkerchiefs.
A Paddington Bear bedsheet in the guest-room,
Once a gift for the children of her children,
Holds a haggard Bible in hardbound leather.

Who is to blame for the follies of her life?
The Devil himself who toils day and night?
Ignoble ecstasy and lustful pleasure in disguise?
Or is it the mores of the multitude that are afoul,
When a lone woman seeks to be released in vain,
From prisons of past and burdens of pain.

An eerie quiet breathes down the Turkish rug,
Except when cutlery clatters in the kitchen,
Or water drips from the leaking faucet.
With a clock that ticks for no one at home,
And a heart that drudges for none but her,
She closes her eyes to imagine the Rapture.

How the heavens will split right in two,
As the good Lord descends right on Earth,
With angels and minions to right the sins,
Of the family whose hate still lingers,
In the lacerated veins of wrinkled wrists,
Of a woman who dies in silence and tears.

Black Mountain Bird

I'm often an unenthusiastic witness, 

Lying on plush cotton bed linens,

Asleep, and unknown to those outside,

In the deep black of the humid night,

To the puzzling images of a familiar life,

Stories that I know were never mine.

As the little hero of these fictions,

Prancing about in joyous delight,

Handshakes with those who matter,

Plaudits and bravo in timely manner,

Groping breasts as I massage her head,

In reels of film I dread when I'm awake.

Who writes these terrible screenplays,

Twisting life with myths and fantasies,

Surreal dialogues delivered in epitaphs,

In settings comical even when asleep,

Not to mention the absurdity of it all,

I desire to understand the nonsensical.

So I'm taken to the den of the Shaolin,

A young man who studies the monks,

By the whiff of destiny and a flight,

Throughout the day and into the night,

We talked about the halls of our past,

Our struggles living in artificial glass. 

The very next night I was running naked,

On hilltops and white sands in euphoria,

Until I reached a pipe fountain where,

A bird that frightened me in the past stood,

Only to fly away into the sunny blue sky,

To let the pure water awash me clean.

Is militant atheism just another form of religious extremism?

No weakness of the human mind has more frequently encountered derision and condescension than the negligence of Reason. From scientists and philosophers to satirists and moralists, the high priests of our civilization have long asserted that Reason is the sword that is to wielded against the spectre of all that is false and evil. What endows this faculty of the mind with a particularly unique and invigorating power is, they contend, its propensity to unravel truth. Furthermore, like a farmer who tends to his orchard in order to secure a bountiful harvest, we are led to believe that cultivating Reason and attuning our world-view to its command will enable us to advance the possibility of a better existence. At the very least, they suggest that the human spirit would be enlivened by the pursuit of truth and emboldened to undertake the journey of life without resorting to comforting fairy tales. Indeed, as Francisco Goya conveyed through his most famous painting, lest we fail in our duty as the logical and empirical architects of our minds, the sleep of reason will produce monsters.

     Samuel Johnson once contended that "the great differences that disturb the peace of mankind are not about ends, but means". Yet ardent advocates of Reason would beg to differ, for they lay claim to grievance on account of both ends and means. For one, they contend that there is no greater monstrosity among the people of the Earth than that of the belief in God. Moreover, they abhor the various means by which much of humanity translates such beliefs into practice, faith and ritual being primary. These individuals, who patronize or even despise believers, take it as their central tenet that religion is the root of all evil, and that irrationality poisons everything. In their naivety, they presume that purging society of religious and irrational artifacts would pave way for an improved world. 

     Now, to a curious mind tempered by skepticism, such assertions appear problematic for the simple reason that they are dogmatic. Furthermore, the facts these charlatans have marshaled to support their claims have been cherry-picked from the annals of history. A seeker of truth would certainly appreciate criticisms when they are meted out with balance and humility but when claims of a fundamentalist nature are unashamedly paraded around under the placard of 'militant atheism', one is, out of a sense of duty, called upon to expose such kinds of extremism.

     It is useful to first examine the most fundamental aspect of militant atheism - an extreme if not an absolute lack of belief in God. Although there have been doubts expressed against the existence of a divine entity since time immemorial, they have been generally voiced with modesty. For instance, the ancient Indic text of Rig Veda (10. 129) has the following verse -

Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being? He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

Such thoughts expressed in hesitation points to a mind that is free of the clutches of dogma. Perhaps the most appropriate and sophisticated manner by which one can handle the riddle of existence is to simply shy away from taking up a particular position, whether it be that of an atheist, an agnostic or a believer. Indeed, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent", and in matters where the train of logic leads to both discovery and nothingness, and the subsequent sentiments that pervade the being are both profound and absurd, one must simply comply with Wittgenstein's timeless dictum. But the foot soldiers of Reason, deluded by the faith that the universe will one day reveal itself, continue to wage war against the very abstraction that keep the multitude from collapsing as a result of cognitive dissonance or even worse, incurable ignorance. In other words, militant atheism makes the mistake of glorifying unbelief and crowning Reason in a universe that is, at least given the limitations of the human cognition, an irrational wilderness.

     Another characteristic that defines militant atheism is the aspiration to disseminate its unbelief in a myriad of ways onto the domains of both public and private life. For instance, ardent atheists desire the dismantlement of theology departments even though these places of inquiry have been the raison d'etre for many universities. Those of a slightly milder disposition however would share the sentiment that despite being antithetical to ideals of scientific truth and inquiry, these institutions nevertheless prepare individuals who will undertake the task of providing religious services to the community; services that are indispensable in the eyes of many. 

     Other examples are abound of militant atheists seeking to remove traces of religion from society on the grounds that they are false and irrational without paying enough heed to the way in which such beliefs foster a feeling of community, give people a sense of purpose or offer them consolation at the time of distress. For example, a grieving mother of a dying child would be consoled by the belief that she will be united with her son's soul in heaven after her own death. Indeed, despite the implausibility of such a belief on the grounds of the dubious existence of an afterlife, it could be argued that this very belief could be rational if it helps a sentient being cope well with the many vicissitudes and griefs of life; sentient beings who are especially poor, lack access to both means and time to engage in metaphysical speculation, and are disadvantaged in almost every way except for the strength they receive from their faith to walk onward in life. So, according to this line of thought, militant atheism is extremist since it seeks to enforce its own standards of excellence, namely truth and rationality, upon the many spheres of public and private life, without recognizing the multifarious nature and needs of humanity.

     Now, the declamatory vehemence with which militant atheism has been disrobed of its pretensions and vanity thus far is in no way an attempt to equate it to religious extremism. Indeed, among the causes of the many terrible massacres and tragedies of human history, religious extremism dwarfs its distant and more civilized relative with considerable ease. Save for certain episodes of the French Revolution and some rare occurrences in history, it is difficult to establish a direct causal relation between atheist extremism and some form of humanitarian tragedy and suffering. Uncritical apologists for religion may argue that the great massacres of the twentieth-century were committed by atheists such as Stalin and Mao but as mentioned before, it is difficult to ascertain whether their atheism was instrumental in deciding their regressive actions and policies. For the most part, some other grand, overarching ideology such as Marxism took place of their irreligion and godlessness in creating conditions conducive for mass killings and destruction. Certainly, it is difficult to find instances in history when a leader has gone on to claim that their atheism induced them to systematically exterminate a certain subset of the population whereas one can find references to religion that prompted and still prompts many to undertake arms and commit crimes unspeakable.

     Most importantly, the conduct of militant atheists in the modern day, despite being brash, aggressive, unsophisticated, dogmatic, offensive and obtuse, is never violent. Militant atheism's leading luminaries are mostly science professors, literary provocateurs and cultural giants and it is difficult to conceive them commanding their followers to employ intimidation and violence to impose their godlessness and lack of faith on society. In other words, even though religion is not the root of all evil, it has certainly exercised its inherent evilness since time immemorial, and God, if he were so desirous to increase the occupancy of hell, would instantly choose religious extremists over militant atheists.

[Qn. 28, General Paper I, Examination Fellowship, September 2011, All Souls College]

Conversations (With and On)

Schopenhauer
 Misery
Buñuel
 Hypocrisy
Leopardi
 Lonely
Nietzsche
 Futility
Newton
 Discovery
Shelley
 Sanctity
Rousseau
 Authenticity
Machiavelli
 Expediency
Gramsci
 Hegemony
Burke
 Continuity
Chomsky
 Duty
Postman
 Clarity
Berlin
 Liberty
Smith
 Morality
Truth
 Poetry

The Farmer's Fortitude

Might I suggest a way

To contemplate the past

Not to stamp it out 

Or to make it last

But to embrace it with

The farmer's fortitude.

As the rains ravage on

For days and days until

All that sprouted delight

Were uprooted and gone

Roots and leaves no more

Everything strewn about.

The son of the land does

Feel the pain and loss

But sit and cry he knows

Along with being sloth

Will surely bring the foe

A demon cloaked in dark.

No matter what they say

About these times in grey

To work he goes in time

With his axe and sweat

Scent of thyme in wind

Hopefulness abreast.

As the decay goes in mud

It leaves behind its trace

Red and brown in colour

Lush in flowing veins

All for a man to see

Life's possibilities.

So out he goes and strews

Future greens for bloom

Shapes and sizes changed

Of fields and paths archaic

For experiences bring

New ways to see things.

And in this land he makes

Not what he used to till

And went home and ate

But all of this and more

In a manner that speaks 

Of a man who grew wings.

Is it worse to be cruel to a fox than to a flea?

This universe appears to have emerged from a mystery,
And looks to end its journey beyond the reach of infinity,
So let the chains of reason wither for the lush of fantasy,
Only bound by the anomaly that we are one and lonely.

This we believe as we glide through the breeze,

Of trans-galactic sunspots and molten lava trees,

And in the bowels of space we find the hiding place,

Of a cauldron that churns matter in scorching pace.

Thaliums and bismuths, radiums and manganese,

Chromium planets with diamond stars in the freeze,

Beyond and near and below the reaches of the void,

Elements and compounds, they divide and collide. 

Yet among all this commotion lies the reality,

That life is to be lived with another live entity.

Not with supernovas that drench horizons in light,

Nor with starbursts that pigment the dark night.

You see for all their heat they lack that warmth,

And though corporeal they are still lifeless forms,

Spending their days in manners strange and odd,

A bit like stones and rocks serenading a roughshod.

Now the pangs of loneliness begin to devour us,
A blackhole that renders joy and light lifeless,
And so we scour across the span of the universe,
For a being that shares a semblance of our senses.

Out it catapults like a canonball across the sky,
Giant jupiters jutting out for what seem like eyes,
Extending its claws to us in a way that speaks,
Of someone who needs warmth from the chilly peaks.

With the deep black canopy as the stage for life,
And a back that shines like the masterchef knives,
The flea takes the spotlight in this vast expanse,
An ocean of matter where not a thing can dance.

And so begins our journey with this beast of wonder,
A marvel we recognize when our distractions asunder,
For amidst the din of the day we fail to feel perceive,
What a little fantasy and empathy can achieve.

But one day this flea will bite and you will think,
"What an annoying pest, shall I just kill and leave?",
Yet one day all wonders will vanish into heap and dust,
So please savour each day and try to be cruel to none.

[Qn 1, General Paper I, Examination Fellowship, September 2007, All Souls College]

Should investors be able to fund legal actions in exchange for a share of the damages?

At a Congressional hearing examining the role of federal regulators in instigating the Great Recession, Alan Greenspan, a man once hailed by many as the most powerful banker in the world, was hurled with the accusation that his inviolable belief in the supremacy of unfettered and competitive markets to organize economies was grossly erroneous. As someone who had the authority to oversee and modulate lending practices across a range of institutions, it was alleged that his 'ideology' had perniciously interfered with his duties as one of the chief guardians of the financial stability of the nation. But Alan Greenspan was not a man to be fazed by the committee's probing. In his characteristically bland yet composed response, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve admitted that he had indeed discovered flaws in his 'conceptual framework for interpreting reality' and though it had stood him in good stead for over forty years, the events surrounding the financial crisis had cast the foundation of his beliefs into much doubt. Particularly, the spectacular failure of lending institutions to safeguard their own self-interest as well as their shareholders' equity had caused this economist a great deal of consternation and disbelief. 

      While the initial cataclysm of the crisis has receded from our memories, it is worth reflecting on Greenspan's 'conceptual framework' for a few reasons. The intellectual edifice that informed his world-view was in no small measure shared by a number of economists over the last decade, if not the last century. In fact, it still has widespread currency among many contemporary figures. From Robert Lucas, Jr. to Lawrence Summers, the most influential voices of the dismal science believe that societies can achieve the greatest prosperity when individuals are left free to choose. Goods, in their widest sense, can be traded voluntarily between parties who wish to exchange it and as long as they are increasing their well-being without impinging upon the liberty or utility of someone else, transactions in all shapes and guises are permitted. Such libertarian market thinking gained widespread traction over the last thirty years and leaders such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan endorsed this logic with great enthusiasm, both intellectually as well as in matters praxis. As a result, with the academic as well as political establishments favouring laissez-faire capitalism, it seemed like the era of deregulation and market triumphalism was finally here to stay. However, the consequences of this shift in the paradigm governing economies was not just felt solely in the arena of markets but had extended deep into areas of society previously governed by non-market norms.

     Michael Sandel, a renowned moral philosopher whose insights are the springboard for many of the thoughts expressed here, notes that almost anything and everything is up for sale and consumption these days - from the right to kill endangered species to the practice of hiring private companies to fight wars - it appears as if norms of the society have simply become a reflection of the norms of the market. Under such a state of affairs, certain things that we generally would not like to treat as commodities have come to be considered as instruments of profit and monetary benefit. Additionally, the extent to which economics as a subject has enlarged its scope of enquiry and applied its modes of analysis to aspects of society previously studied by other areas such as anthropology, sociology and so on has further accentuated the commercialization of norms, so to speak. This is best exemplified by the widespread use of gift-cards for shopping, an idea that has its origin in economists' view that rational individuals understand their preferences the best and those who are planning to gift might as well give cash so as to help maximize the recipient's utility. Such an idea, although arising from logical economic precepts, nevertheless betrays the traditional sentiment that gift giving is an exercise in thoughtfulness and an outward expression of the relationship rather than just an act facilitating consumption. In a similar vein, the issue of investors being able to fund legal actions in exchange for a share of the damages is situated at the confluence of the encroachment of market thinking upon traditional, non-market norms as well as the expansive and imperialistic role of economic analysis. It is now useful to examine in brief a certain case that can serve as the starting point of our argument.

     Consider the controversial and highly publicized lawsuit Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. In 1992, an elderly lady by the name of Stella Liebeck spilled coffee she purchased from a McDonald's drive-through on herself and suffered from excruciating third-degree burns in many parts of her body. In due course after receiving emergency treatments and skin grafting, she approached the fast-food giant for obtaining coverage for her medical expenses. The company rejected these and further requests outright and the matter had to be settled by the court. Liebeck was awarded up to a seven figure sum in damages and though it was settled for a significantly lesser amount in confidentiality between the two parties, the case proved to be a watershed in the debate over tort reforms in the United States. On the one hand, there were those who argued that the lawsuit set a precedent for frivolous litigation where individuals could sue companies for injuries or harm under conditions where there was little or no legal merit. Simultaneously, there were those who contended that such types of litigation were necessary to keep corporate greed and malpractices under check. In our case, for the sake of argument, imagine that a firm is floated by a group of investors who decide that given the precedent set by The Hot Coffee Lawsuit, there is a great deal of money to be made from frivolous litigations. They design mechanisms where people who feel they have been harmed or wronged by some company can send in their grievances. After some legal research, the investors decide whether or not a litigation is worth pursuing. If indeed a particular legal action is worth the effort, they fund the entire process and enter into a contract with the aggrieved customer to split the share of the damages in the event of a win. The question now is whether we as citizens have reasons for some sort of discomfiture, and if so, on what grounds.

     At first glance, it may appear that there is nothing particularly disconcerting about the arrangement between the investors and the disgruntled customers. According to the principles of competitive markets, two parties here have engaged in a mutually advantageous transaction without making someone else worse off, a condition known in the decision sciences as 'pareto improvement'. More importantly, economic reasoning suggests that such transactions improve societal well-being as a whole and this is what economists mean when they claim that competitive markets allocate goods efficiently. In other words, when people engage in mutually beneficial trades, markets allocate goods to those who value them most highly, as measured by their willingness to pay. The fact that a dissatisfied customer strikes a deal with an investor for a share of the damages in return for funding the legal procedure suggests that both the parties are better off, along with the society as a whole. Of course, for argument's sake, it is assumed here that the defendant, whichever the company, would be worse-off regardless of whether or not the plaintiff reached a deal with the investors. The latter, presumably risk-loving individuals who in the spirit of the insurance business have decided to fund numerous lawsuits of different natures so as to maximize the chances of success, are better off since they would not have embarked on this venture otherwise. Similarly, by sharing the potential settlement with the investors, the plaintiff gets access to funding for the legal procedure thereby saving up on costs. Yet, this line of thinking implicitly suggests that the good, whatever it may be, when used in a commercial transaction does not get altered with regard to its character.

     Unlike standard commodities or services such as automobiles or haircuts, what is being exchanged in our case is a different kind of good: justice, as dispensed by the courts. Indeed, for us to understand why justice should not be treated as a standard commodity, we need to examine our conception of a reasonable justice system and how the pact made by the investors and plaintiffs corrupts the judiciary and its ideals in many ways. Firstly, it is contended that the judiciary's primary role is in the dispensation of justice and not in the granting of claims or settlements. The latter is simply a mechanism to further 'enhance' the justice dispensed and by itself does not lay claim to any merit. However, the very nature of many frivolous lawsuits are that they are filed assuming that justice is equivalent to receiving a monetary windfall. This is contended to be a wrong attitude towards justice as an ideal since it degrades it and equates it with other base commodities in the market place. Secondly, the plaintiff, whoever it may be, must not view the judiciary simply as a means to accrue monetary benefit for doing so otherwise would be to corrupt the justice system. In effect, those with such an intention would perceive the judiciary as a mechanism for gambling and landing windfall gains. In a similar vein, the investors, when engaging in the funding of legal procedures, render the plaintiffs as potential lottery tickets and thereby turns the judiciary into a source of funding for the prize-money. Therefore, if we as citizens seek to preserve the integrity and respect of the judiciary, we should be aware that allowing investors to fund legal actions in exchange for a share of the damages can corrupt and degrade our cherished ideals of the justice system, and turn it into an instrument of private gain rather than a source of public good.

     Free-market advocates may grudgingly concede to the arguments of corruption to a public institution but may not be convinced that there are sound utilitarian reasons for opposing the deal between investors and plaintiffs. But, it is difficult to hold such a position since there are many reasons why such a pact should be regulated, if not opposed entirely. For one, financing many a frivolous litigation means that there will be an excess of unwarranted legal cases circulating within the judicial system. This might result in the devotion of time and resources to lawsuits that do not deserve our judiciary's attention and more importantly, it may crowd out files that deservedly require time and consideration with regard to dispensing justice. Such a situation is certainly foreseeable in developing countries like India where the population is high and the judiciary cannot keep up with the demands of citizenry. Secondly, it may put undue pressure on owners and those heading businesses to be alert for people committing 'mishaps' in their premises. For instance, say a KFC franchise owner is following all the systems in place and assuming that there are no faults, a customer still manages to 'find' insects or some other unwanted items in the food and decides to file a lawsuit. No doubt these frivolous litigations will make business owners more alert in how they serve their customers but for honest businessmen who are interested in a day's work for a day's profit, such lawsuits can be damaging, both financially and emotionally. In this sense, the nefarious pact between investors and potential plaintiffs can harm entrepreneurial spirit of the nation in a myriad of ways.

     Last but not the least, it is conceivable that given the way modern finance and its allied disciplines and institutions have developed, funding of legal actions in exchange for a share of the damages will be scaled up and made vastly complicated by the use of financial instruments and securitization. No doubt this will become a massive industry the way mortgages and student loans have become fodder for giant banks, pension funds and insurance companies. The global financial system will soon begin to allocate much needed capital into sectors such as this rather than areas where essential services are provided or tangible goods are manufactured. Employment generation will be sacrificed for getting a share of returns from customers who have slipped in the wash area in Starbucks or purposely stuffed in an insect in their Mc Donald's burger. Furthermore, in the event that such kinds of investing become commonplace, it is possible that even more frivolous and dastardly types of financing and profit generation may crop up in different parts the economy and given that our regulators have limited resources and cannot comprehensively review every single sector of the system, we may well be in for many unforeseeable crises in the future. Indeed, we must certainly do away with Alan Greenspan's 'conceptual framework for interpreting reality' for it may very well lead us on to our next Great Recession. What we need is effective regulation that safeguards the integrity of our public institutions without necessarily destroying the potential for Schumpeter's 'Creative Destruction' or the general entrepreneurial spirit of the economy. Yet, at the same time, investors such as those trying to fund legal actions in exchange for returns should be regulated, if not completely barred from carrying out their activities by the iron hand of the regulatory authorities of the nation.

[Qn. 5, General Paper II, September 2010, Examination Fellowship, All Souls College]

A Spark of Madness

The unexpected and unpleasant deaths of renowned artists in faraway lands prove a rather difficult emotion to manage. For one, the idea of 'mourning' in any genuine sense feels slightly disconcerting given that one has never made acquaintance with these individuals, let alone see them in flesh. Yet, through their works, remarkable artists of a wide variety seem to have become an integral part of our psyche and the way we relate to the world around us, so much so that sometimes, we may never know where they end and where we begin. Word by word and page by page, writers weave narratives that delve within and plumb our depths, allowing us to reflect on sentiments essential for our contentment; sentiments that may have been buried by the pressures of the daily normal. Film-makers inspire awe and wonderment at mere being and at the same time, force us to shudder and tremble at the prospect of existence in an incomprehensible and amoral universe. In other words, whatever may be their chosen craft and wherever and whenever they may be or may have been, artists are, to enlarge Percy Shelley's perspective, "the unacknowledged legislators of the world". They give civilization the raison d'etre and the most sublime ones convey to us, in a very deep and ethereal sense, what it is to be human and to be alive. But, as I write these words, the world laments the loss of one such artist, a force of nature whose performances on screen made audiences around the world roar with laughter as well as shed many a tear. A legislator of the turbulent currents of life, he ensured that the chaos and torment within gave birth to, as Friedrich Nietzsche would have it, many a "dancing star". Robin Williams, loved by children and adults alike, was found dead in his home in a suspected case of suicide by asphyxiation. The details do not matter much for they point to a devious demon lurking in the corners of the darkest alleyways within some of our minds.

      Perhaps I must first admit that I am not an expert in mental illnesses. Given the diverse range of approaches and understandings about these topics, one simply does not know which framework best to employ while addressing a particular issue. Is it Freud's Psychoanalaysis or Jung's Analytical Psychology? Or is it some version of occultism addressing the spirit? There are too many perspectives to get around. Still, as a general rule of thumb and as someone who has faith in the philosophical and institutional edifice governing scientific enquiry, I am inclined to believe in the current consensus which suggests that mental illnesses are, for the most part, manifestations of complications within the physical body. It could be that there is something wrong with neurotransmitters and the standard of communication between synapses in the brain; it could be that some aspect of the environment caused a certain part of the genetic code to unfurl and unleash a series of chain reactions that resulted in some untoward episode, or it could be that the particular endocrine system is simply not optimized to function within the body in its entirety. Whatever the reasons may be, depression, schizophrenia and most other illnesses seem to have a physical component that needs to be treated and it would certainly help if some psychological counseling is also given for added support. Indeed, a combination of these would, in many cases, avert possible suicides and tragic deaths. But to this day, mental illness is such a taboo in many societies that large scale initiatives are necessary to enlighten people regarding its 'normality' and to treat it just like one would treat a physical illness. One can only imagine the number of lives improved or even saved in a given year if people were to take their mental health seriously and visit a certified professional when circumstances call for it. Moreover, if we are willing to encourage those who we think need psychological or psychiatric counseling, it would be equivalent to us prodding someone to visit a general physician in case they had a dreadful headache. Yet sometimes, when those around us are not equipped to recognize our need to be oriented to a safer path and when we ourselves are blinded by the darkness of our own mental episodes, life crashes against the jagged edges of the mind's abyss. Either it meets a tragic and pitiful end, or, there is a light and a spark of madness.

     You would think that I am referring to the kind of insanity witnessed in the forlorn hallways of asylums and sanitariums, when patients are being shifted from wafer thin mattresses to shock therapy rooms, screaming and convulsing away the remnants of their senses. Certainly, they too are the tragic victims of the treacherous machinations of life but I do not wish to include them in my narrative, for I do not have first hand experience of that state of mind. The spark of madness that I speak of here encompasses the tempestuous birth of creative energy as well as the reservoir it engenders that helps fuel and sustain the artist. Indeed, this genesis becomes the first instance when the individual truly understands the redeeming role of art in life and how the continuous engagement in the creative process is essential for, if it is not too brash of me to suggest, survival at large. Of course, as I mentioned previously, were this to happen in some other circumstances to a person of a  different constitution, it would probably result in tragedy. For the artist however, like a volcano that erupts once in a century, madness emerges somewhere along the course of life and depending on the individual's proclivities and sensibilities, he or she sees it either as a gift or a curse. But madness does not judge and it does not distinguish between those who adore it and those who detest it. Its sway over the artist is simply too strong for it to be regulated in any reasonable manner. One may attempt to walk away from it and fervently hope for a life prescribed in normality, and wish for the ashes and debris to settle down once and for all. Or, one can resign in patience to one's fate and choose to believe that the spark of madness is a new beginning to celebrated, a gift bestowed by the forces of the universe to engage in poesis, the act of creating something from nothing; a chance to be Godlike.

     Life is of course mired in contradictions and one would be mistaken in thinking that the artist had it any other way. The very pursuit that sustains life also becomes a seething scimitar dangling over the neck, one whose workings appear to be beyond anyone's immediate reckoning. Indeed, the price for creating art is exacting and exceeding since it requires, consciously or unconsciously, that the artist remains on the edge - between sanity and lunacy, intimacy and aloofness, turmoil and violence, love and loneliness, life and death. Put differently, the artist must embrace chaos because without it, the desire to create art in its most exalted and redeeming state simply becomes a wish to be made on sand. If these musings appear dubious, a cursory glance at the list of the most influential painters in Europe will reveal a record of psychologically disturbed geniuses whose works could have never come about had they enjoyed warm and peaceful private lives. The most poignant and well known example is Vincent van Gogh, the troubled and vituperative Dutchman who committed suicide by aiming a shotgun at his chest. Beyond doubt, one can find the state of his mind clearly reflected in his paintings. Rather than capture the essence of the form in its truest sense, he transposed his inner-life on to the object and made it appear to us as it appeared to him, in his own unique and idiosyncratic sense. Thus, Van Gogh's Chair is not just a chair but his very own, one that embodied the vicissitudes of relationships as well as the overwhelming loneliness that plagued him throughout his life. More examples are abound of poets, writers, performers and musicians of all sorts who found recourse in their creative craft and was yet decimated by its source later. Indeed, it seems quite evident to me that many of them would have known reasonably well that the bittersweet golden nectar that they all drew inspiration and energy from could one day turn soot black and kill them from the inside. Nevertheless, as irrational as it may seem, it is not the dread of succumbing to the demons within nor is it the prospect of leaving behind a childless and barren home that instils the most disquiet in an artist's heart. Rather, it is losing touch with that genesis and reservoir of creativity, that spark of madness. 

      Death is tragic since it signifies the end of a certain combination of matter that may, for all we know, never resume the same configuration and yield the same persona for all of eternity. Life too assumes tragic proportions when we recognize that all of its hopes and rewards do not compensate for the pain and infamy of death. Yet, given this pessimistic view of the spirit of the universe, there is glory to be found in art and consequently, there are artists whom we can label as glorious - artists who have survived the primal explosion of madness; artists who have made a reservoir of vitality out of pain and suffering; artists who have attained transcendence by escaping their boundaries and limitations into worlds and characters they have created for themselves; artists who have touched the lives of others and help convey the many facets of humanity, and last but not the least, artists who have had demons lurking in their minds and succumbed to their deviousness, and in the while, have created beauty and majesty for all of the world to experience. Robin Williams, it appears to me, was all these and more. He once said, "You're only given one little spark of madness. You mustn't lose it". He may have lost his life in trying to channelize and retain that spark but for the rest of the world, he is and will always be, an artist who has attained glory.

send her love to me

the world is cold when the heart is dry

every moment stings with the void of life

there must be a way to survive each day

it is to let love bloom and resist its fray

pray the blue sky clasps the lonely cloud

drifting hither and tither, beyond and yond

roaming and roving to alleviate the curse
of an unfulfilled wish to be taken to the hearse

the nature of humans is mysterious in essence
from blightful senility to youthful adolescence
so it is agreed that love is never to be logical
as it tramples reason and goes beyond national

wisdom suggests that two souls will unite

in a love tinged friendship that is hard to find
where conversations flow with jest and ease
and the minds are equal for the growth of each

but tragedy it is when words were exchanged
in meetings composed of seconds and restraint
for the woman i seek is still an obscure mystery
and it seems that all this was never meant to be

so i pour out my lamentations with a broken pen
on a sheet of paper that will never feel her scent
at a time of the day when rains sweep the drains
in a world that is drenched in dismay and grey

(For the sake of clarification, this poem is written about a girl in Australia who studies Law and Economics.)

Wasting My Time

Sweat beads and briefcase
Fabrics to measure and sell
Not academic

Snake

In the night I search for love,

Gun in hand and sword above,

Stars and stripes hide the veil, 

God is here behind the wheel. 

Pretty things they are not far,

Little girls they know the czar,

Daddy's girl knows the drill,

Daddy's girl fears the will.

I'll take you flying in the dark,

To hell and back in my car,

Shut your mouth and the door,

Wrap my steel with your blow.

Hold it tight and chew it hard,

Rub these desires until they scar,

All your branches, all your leaves,

All your future, all your dreams.

Open your mouth and let it go,

Drop your clothes for my show,

Turn around and clench the seat,

Close your eyes and feel the heat.

Don't you question who I am,

Working harder for this land,

Pledged my life to serve and kill,

Nation and daughter at my will.

Girl if you think that I am an evil man,

Make your thoughts scarce and scant,

For I will haunt you in your waking life,

And my eyes will pierce you like a knife.

The time has come for me to end,

A perfect night with my little friend,

Wipe away those tears pretty child,

And act as if you were all alone tonight.

Let's go back home without a weep,

It's twelve at night and ma is asleep,

Into your room to tuck you to bed,

To wake up early, alive and dead. 

Some Thoughts Concerning Rape

In what has been a rather disastrous period for the Republic of India with regard to a variety of issues ranging from territorial incursions in Indo-China border to a dampening economy with a flailing currency, none has touched the raw nerve of the public more than the issue of rape and violence against women. Ever since the brutal gangrape of a pre-med student in Delhi last December, the public has grown accustomed to reports of sexual assaults across the media spectrum. Despite this increased exposure, people are still out on the streets fighting for victims' justice and trying to put an end to these assaults against women. I for one have been relatively aware of these issues but unlike most people, I had become too desensitized to these stories and the supposed 'brutality' of these acts simply stopped being so merely because of the sheer magnitude and frequency by which these incidents happened. I also did not contribute towards the national discourse (via the online and print media, let alone some protest march) concerning these issues largely because I perceived them as just another social malady that needed to be sorted out by the authorities and the public at large. In other words, as a member of a relatively privileged social and political group, rape was simply a new addition to already commonplace issues that were want of my attention such as poverty, illiteracy, corruption and so on. However, there was a peculiar case of rape that I came across that really disturbed me and I wish share it with the reader, not just for the sake of sharing a moment of shock, but as a starting point to engage in a series of questions that sheds light on both the complexity of the topic at hand and more importantly, the depravity of a certain gender.

Towards the end of November last year, Tehelka reported a horrible story concerning the rape of a thirteen year old girl from Kannur at the hands of her father, brother and uncle. Although the three accused have been nabbed by the police, stories also emerged about the suicide of this girl's older sister two years ago. One could reasonably suggest that rape and sexual assault would have been the primary cause for her suicide. Now, contrast this story with the major rape case that occurred last year in Delhi, that of the pre-med student who was brutally gang-raped on a moving bus while her male friend was beaten up and left immobile. To add to the gruesomeness, the men stuffed various objects inside her vagina and had she been alive now, she would not have been able to conceive children given the distraught state of her reproductive organs. Both the stories concern with rape but both of them seem to have a different character. I am of course not trying to rank cases according to certain arbitrary notions such as 'gruesomeness' or 'violence', rather, I am trying to understand why men commit the act of rape. What causes many members of my gender to engage in this kind of behavior?

To answer this question sufficiently well, we would have to sift through all known cases of rape and sexual assault against woman and try to pick up some general characteristics of those who do this. However, this itself is no simple task as I will show you. Consider the Delhi rape case: what would have been the possible reasons for a group of men to commit this act? Without referring to the actual characteristics of those accused, let us engage in some reasonable speculation. Going by certain pre-conceived notions, we could suggest that they were migrants from Bihar, Orissa or Uttar Pradesh, in a strange and alien metropolis with little or no familial connections. The kind of work they engage in may be menial in nature and they may also be quite sexually frustrated, given their new surroundings and the kind of cultural and social immobility in terms of having access to those willing to embark on relationships or even submit to casual sex. Compounding this must be some perversion for women from middle class society and above, with their modern conceptions of attire and looks. Raping a member from this group would be a release of frustrations of all kinds, class as well as sexual, it may be suggested. But what explains the ensuing violence after the rape, that of stuffing material objects such as rods into the vagina? Are there social causal structures that lead to this despicable act or are they just the product of mindless male aggression and animalism manifesting in a group setting? Questions remain.

Consider the other, in my mind, more disturbing example, that of three immediate members of the family sexually assaulting a thirteen year old school-going girl. Can we engage in some speculation here, at the risk of causing a great deal of discomfort to ourselves? Why and how could all three males here access the vagina of this girl with mutual consent? Does the raw energy of the testosterone override any sense of social norms or decency? Does not the father have a wife who can cater to his sexual needs? Cannot the uncle, assuming he is a single, solicit prostitutes or use pornography for some kind of temporary release, lest the sexual appetite becomes too unbearable to handle? What about her own brother, fifteen years of age, who took turns in penetrating his little sister while his father and uncle turned their backs on her, both literally and metaphorically? Do all these three males possess a certain genetic condition that pre-disposes them towards seeking sexual gratification from immediate family members? Silly question but this may appear in most people's minds. At least in the father's case, is it not something else other than sexual frustration manifesting itself in the form of vaginal penetration of his own daughter? Questions still remain.

Although we have only looked at two cases, even comparing a range of cases of rape does not really give us an insight into why someone primarily commits an act of rape. In other words, to say that all rapists commit rape because they are sexually frustrated would be a misleading statement, so would any other claim that seeks to explain this phenomena with a single explanatory factor. For each case, we may find that the primary reason for the act may be different from some other case or even worse, unidentifiable. All we know is that at the receiving end of the penetration was someone powerless and forced to submit to a sexual act without consent. Due to these complexities, instant solutions to reducing instances of rape are complicated and quite hard to come by. Even when policies and changes to social norms, both subtle and explicit, are being discussed to reduce the incidence of these acts, I feel quite pessimistic when it comes to reforming society in this respect. The range of cases, the kind people involved in it, some of the relationships with their victims, the unimaginable violence and cruelty inflicted, and all of the scum and depravity that makes up this aspect of our social reality makes me cringe. In a society where relatively decent familial norms are in currency, what effective legal or social changes are we speaking of when a father, brother and uncle takes advantage of a little girl's age and uses her vagina?  Both legal and social deterrents are already in place and also enforced quite strictly. Are we then witnessing a decaying society or is it just the way things always have been and always will be? There are no easy answers.

I would like to conclude with the following story - a couple of days ago, I was standing near a yard waiting for someone to pick me up. The area was quite desolate except for a few cars parked on the side. I noticed that there were a lot of stray dogs and a few of them were lying beneath some of these stationary cars. After spending some time observing all this, I noticed that it was mainly female dogs who were lying beneath the cars while the males were busty circling around it making growls and noises of a scary kind. Suddenly, I saw a male dog go under one of the cars with a lot of force and scare a female dog, who in turn reacted by coming out on the open. She then started running but was no match for the two male dogs running behind her. One of them (who initially frightened the female) was strong and ferocious enough to scare the other male dog away and after doing so, he caught her from behind, brought her movement to a halt and started fucking her while she moaned and howled; one moment she was safe under the car but in no time, she seemed to be experiencing a world of torment. I could ultimately perceive this either as a depraved act or just the normal way the forces of nature function. In my heart however, I felt like I was witnessing an act of rape and just then, I had a moment of realization. It struck me like a bolt of lightening, that men are also savages. Forces of civilization and humanistic values such as the pursuit of love, the idea of courtship and reserving the best of ourselves exclusively for those we choose to be with are nothing but illusions and distractions to keep us distanced from our savage tendencies. Still, these are necessary illusions and if believed with a religious conviction, they may very well descend upon Earth and come true. At least, one has to have faith in such ideals and try and live by them because the alternative would be to become degenerates like these dogs or worse, the rapist scum among us. 

Does it matter if there is life elsewhere in the universe?

Meditations on the emergence of the physical universe and our place in it yield many questions whose answers may forever remain elusive. Even when speculations are put forth with the appearance of theoretical rigour, there is still much to be desired in terms of clarity and wholeness of thought. Alternate proposals involving deities and other theological narratives also fall short of these standards and one is placed in a quagmire of non-cognition, left to despair at the futile pursuit of one of the most important questions that have held sway over the minds of our species. Nevertheless, despite this pathetic epistemic situation, one has to have some implicit beliefs regarding the metaphysical aspects of the universe and our position in it so as to structure various aspects of existence and to live meaningfully as self-reflective organisms. In this regard, if the tendency of an individual is to have notions about being and causation that are generally non-theistic in nature, then, assuming that there is no life elsewhere in the universe, the unique presence of this phenomenon in all its myriad manifestations on Earth may inspire awe and wonderment. It can be suggested that for these individuals, especially those with heightened poetic and artistic sensibilities, an almost indescribable sense of amazement washes over the self and it is ultimately this kind of sentiment that allows for a subjective valuation of the concept of life. In other words, such feelings become a major mechanism for meaning as well as an important influence in the shaping of moral sentiments. This is by no means an original claim and it is useful to examine a certain novel whose artistic insights will provide us a framework to elaborate on this topic. However, at first, it is essential gain a grasp of what we really mean by ‘life’ given the context of our discussion.

Any attempt to give a realist definition of life - one that seeks to capture what the word should mean in its truest sense, is a misguided endeavour. The notions that we hold of this phenomenon are conditioned by our current understanding of organisms on Earth and given our cognitive limitations and incomplete information regarding most things, it would be unreasonable to expect any realist definition to capture all essential characteristics of all possible manifestations of life all across the universe. Similarly, employing a functional or lexical definition to give us a definite framework to approach the idea of life for our current task at hand would be detrimental because, in theory, we will inherently prevent certain novel conceptions from being part of the criteria determine whether something possesses life. So, with these limitations in mind, it is felt that the best definition for life is a non-definition - one that relies primarily on our intuition - that 'we will recognise it when we come across it'. Although this is not the most desirable approach, it is the safest one given that our major objective is to determine whether it matters to us if life exists in any part of the universe, and for the sake of humility, we are assuming that there may be other conceptions of life that are not yet known to us but we will be able to recognize it and include in our cognitive apparatus when we come across it (To make this point clearer consider the following example: in 12th century, no one would have conceived of bacteria and as a result, it would not have been part of their idea of something that possesses life but in the 21st century, bacteria is very much considered a living organism). Therefore, if the assumptions and the approach outlined here are accepted, then, an explicit definition of life becomes unnecessary. At best, we can term life as an 'unquantifiable abstract' and given its complexity, we must submit to a relatively less precise notion of it.  Now, given these conditions, a certain novel can be examined whose artistic insights will provide us a foundation for having a discussion regarding life manifesting elsewhere in the universe.

'Watchmen', a graphic novel written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons is a towering work of art written and published towards the late eighties. While it is tedious to give a plot summary at this juncture, the novel essentially revolves around five costumed crimefighters and sheds light on their complex psychological profiles. It is also a serious commentary on ideas such as utilitarianism, nihilism and existentialism, among many others. For our purposes, it is chapter nine titled 'The Darkness of Mere Being' that is mainly of interest. In it, Doctor Manhattan, the only costumed vigilante who has superpowers, transports himself and a fellow crimefighter named Silk Spectre to Mars in order to gain a clearer perspective regarding human existence in the face of an impending armageddon back in Earth. Doctor Manhattan, who has many abilities, one of them being the capacity to alter matter at will, allows his colleague and fading romantic interest to remain in conditions that will allow her to function normally, and he creates a spaceship that will enable both of them to traverse the landscape of Mars without any difficulty. He then ruminates on the marvelous topography of this alien planet and how some of its volcanoes are as "large as Missouri" and how there are no "pinnacles" in Earth to rival this. He also goes to various lengths to appreciate the grandeur of non-living entities such as a valley that stretches three thousand miles in length and has a depth of four miles. In other words, Doctor Manhattan suggests to Silk Spectre that human life is "brief and mundane" and that in his perception, all he sees is atoms: the "ancient spectacle that birthed the rubble". He does not contend human beings to be any more interesting or valuable than, say, a volcano or a planet or any other combination of matter. But, just as Silk Spectre also comes to accept life as an inexplicable grim entanglement, Doctor Manhattan has an epiphany and changes his mind. A serendipitous moment in their conversation induces him to look at human existence from a different angle and he exclaims that life is a "thermo-dynamic miracle...events with odds against so astronomical that they're effectively impossible, like oxygen spontaneously becoming gold". He muses on this idea and longs to "observe such a thing", implicitly indicating to us that since its odds are so astronomical, Earth may be the only region in the universe where life has manifested. Doctor Manhattan contemplates on human birth and finds the coupling of sperm and egg to form a zygote "the crowning unlikelihood". Ultimately, it strikes him that constant exposure to human beings leaves everyone so desensitized that nobody can appreciate "these miracles" unless viewed and reflected upon from "another vantage point".

Doctor Manhattan's new-found conceptions of human existence are definitely nobler and appreciative but the question remains whether an expansive idea of 'life' existing elsewhere in the universe matters to us as members of an intelligent species. To answer this, consider the following thought experiment: we have witnessed the birth of the universe and the elementary building blocks of matter and stardust are scattered all throughout; the universe is constantly expanding in front of us and the particles of the universe and other complex entities which we may not fully comprehend such as dark matter all lead to the formation of planets, stars, galaxies and all possible phenomena. We continue to observe for a few billion years and the same process keeps repeating and multiplying, as the universe expands into further reaches. But, in the corner of our eye, we notice a spectacle: a tiny blue planet in a certain part of this vast existence seems to exhibit a very unique phenomenon - the first life form emerges albeit in a very rudimentary form. Now, this is exceptional, for in the course of our viewing, no other area of the universe, not a single one, has experienced such a spectacle. With the passage of time, we notice that due to the conducive conditions of this particular region, these rudimentary life forms multiply and also grow in complexity leading to different forms of life with special features such as intelligence, emotions and the capacity for creation itself. All this seems miraculous, for our materialistic conceptions of the universe would have allowed even the emergence of the most basic life form only at the levels of highest improbability. It is as if in an infinite sample space, an event of 'zero chance' actually occurs. With this picture in mind, let us switch to a different thought experiment, one where the event of life emerging from the primordial stardust is common place. We observe it in different regions of the universe: in some places, the forms of life and its evolution is similar to that in Earth and in other places, new types of life forms emerge that may or may not correspond to our present notions of what life may constitute but we do identify it given our assumption for such a capacity. Every single galaxy seems to have around five regions where life seems to have taken hold of and when we multiply this by the number of galaxies that exist and are coming into being, the possibilities of life in the universe become endless, all too familiar and all too natural. We observe that even when a large meteorite strikes a habitat of a certain form of life in a distant corner of the universe and completely obliterates this region, life as a concept still exists in the universe and it is a common place phenomena like supernovas, white dwarfs and planetary formations. So, the question remains - does it matter if there is life elsewhere in the universe?

For the purposes of rudimentary existence - one that strives to satisfy the basic necessities of life, such a question is moot. Also, the answer to this question may or may not matter for those who structure their life based on a certain theological narrative that provides meaning and a range of ready-made solutions to many of the existential and moral dilemmas that may arise during the course of a human life. However, for individuals who possess non-theistic and materialist conceptions of being and causation, and who are fortunate enough to engage in grand metaphysical speculation, it is reasonable to assert that it does matter to them whether life exists elsewhere in the universe. As suggested earlier, it is vital for deriving a sense of meaning and purpose in life and also, meditations on such abstractions becomes a reservoir for enriching one's moral sentiments. For instance, if I lack a theology that places me in the center of the universe and gives me a reason to strive for some arbitrary transcendental ideal, then in place of it, the sheer improbability of my existence given the vastness of the cosmos in itself becomes a source of immense meaning: a reason for me to live, for such a combination of matter to yield the light of life as I now experience it may have never occurred elsewhere in any other form in the universe, and may never happen again as this universe fades away into oblivion in the face of entropy. 'Being' in any form let alone my human form is a miracle and making Doctor Manhattan's words my own, "[I] [am] life, rarer than a quark and unpredictable beyond the dreams of Heisenberg, the clay in which the forces that shape all things leave their fingerprints most clearly". And this subtle conception of existence also gives me a reason to appreciate all other forms of life on Earth, from the magnificence of the lion and the whale, to the magic of the microbiome of bacteria that constitutes a great part of what I am. To hold life in any form or combination against the backdrop of the universe and marvel at it: this gives a reason for us to appreciate and preserve life in the absence of a self-evident moral code. Given our self-preserving instincts as well as certain impracticalities associated with preserving life, one is, it may be argued, inclined to a great deal to hold various forms of life as objects worthy of contemplation and as a consequence, the desire to harm or kill them in any way diminishes. To conclude, it is the uniqueness of life on Earth and the feelings that arise from contemplating on such a belief that becomes the subjective foundation of meaning and morality for the type of individuals described earlier. If there is life elsewhere in the universe, then the mechanism for meaning for such individuals may be adversely affected and also, it may possibly dull the subtler, awe-inspiring sentiments that one has for 'life'.

[All Souls College, Fellowship Examination, General Paper I (September 2009), Q. 27]

The God Question

Belief in God is captured using set notation as follows -

{1} = Believer

{1/2} = Agnostic

{0} = Atheist

{} = Null set

Null set is 'non-existence' and this is different from lack of belief in God or affirming belief in God, assuming one has some idea about the term 'God'. Agnostics, despite being unsure, by proclaiming a certain degree of belief, implicitly claims to know what God 'is'. I don't and I would never take a position in this continuum of belief or even approach it. Given the way things are, let me simply state the following: null set. There is simply nothing more to be said. I want to contemplate on the null set and what non-existence in the deepest sense is. I thought zero was non-existence but null set is something else. Maybe it is from the null set that the universe came about. Maybe that is where God 'is'. I am ill-equipped with the mathematical tools to further this investigation. Even if I had them, I have a hunch that I would still end up with some form of incurable ignorance. So, the null set will suffice for now, even though I don't really understand what it is. It seems to be the best position amongst the worst or maybe I am completely wrong. There must be a better way to develop this line of thought. Maybe a grander, more poetic way to bring out the essence of this topic is 'mystery'. Leave it at that, for now. No more words. Please maintain silence. 

Should we engineer our athletes?

Major advances in science and biomedical engineering have conferred upon us the opportunity to alleviate some of the suffering that plagues our species and simultaneously, it has also given rise to predicaments regarding various artificial improvements which can be bestowed upon certain sections of the population whose requirements are strictly non-medical in nature. An example to illustrate this point is the concept of 'Gene Therapy'. Roughly speaking, it is an experimental technique that employs DNA as a pharmaceutical agent to treat a disease. For instance, this procedure, when performed on elderly people suffering from muscular dystrophy, can improve their lives substantially by strengthening the required muscles and can allow them to lead a healthier and more comfortable life than it would have been possible without the assistance of such a technique. However, this procedure also has the ability to improve hitherto healthy muscles and take their performance and functioning to a higher level. Then, there is a potential concern: should such techniques be employed for non-medicinal ends - in our case, the artificial engineering of athletes?

Consider the case of Lionel Messi - arguably one of the world's finest footballers. In his early years as a teenager, he suffered from a growth hormone deficiency that left him relatively stunted compared to his peers, and it was F.C Barcelona who paid for his treatment and allowed him to reach a level of normalcy so that he could train and pursue the opportunity to hone his exceptional skills. Regardless of the exact nature of the medical treatment, our judgement of Messi - his achievements, his performance, his talents, his hard-work and everything else that makes him admired and appreciated by those who have watched him, does not degenerate even with the knowledge of the assistance offered to him by scientists to facilitate the production of his growth hormone. This is so because the scientific aid has assisted him to treat a medical condition and this has only leveled the playing field, so to speak.

Now, imagine an alternative scenario. Ceteris paribus, the only variable that we would change is the very disease that initially afflicted him. For argument's sake, we can assume that Messi may have grown maybe an inch or two taller (his parents are quite short so it is probable that he would not deviate too much from their average height) since he is not affected by the growth hormone deficiency. Again, for argument's sake, assume that technique of gene therapy has been signaled as completely safe for human use by the scientific community. Messi is already on a level playing field and F.C Barcelona, having identified his inherently superior talents, decides that he will undergo gene therapy to strengthen certain muscles in his legs that will better aid him in acceleration, speed, agility, shooting, stamina and balance. Then, it is very likely that this fictional Messi's performance would be superior to his real life counterpart, if one is not being excessively pedantic about the assumptions. Now, if we were to witness the engineered Messi's triumphs and achievements over his career and somehow, his muscle enhancement was kept top secret by F.C Barcelona, would our discovery of this athletic enhancement from some reliable source change our perception about his achievements and ultimately, our perception of him as a footballer?

It is not difficult to imagine what the common reaction to such a news would be: most of us would be disappointed or even appalled. In more general terms, our perception of him would fall into what can be simply termed as 'negative'. The reasons that warrant such a response are many and it will be useful to pursue the most common among them in our case. One could suggest that Messi's enhancement gives him an undue advantage over his competitors as well as those in his team, with reference to the various criteria mentioned earlier. In other words, there is the issue of fairness, which Messi's muscle engineering clearly seems to violate. However, this argument does not hold validity since the innate skill set that any player brings to the training ground can be roughly ranked in an ordinal fashion into a hierarchy by most seasoned coaches and those who lag according to this criteria may always stake a claim to the idea of fairness, in that they have been disadvantaged by circumstances of life such as genetic endowment, early nutrition, fetal development, parental care, environmental concerns (in the broadest sense) and so on. Viewed under this light, genetic engineering is one such circumstance in life that has allowed player X to be at a level higher than player Y, with reference to performance. Therefore, even if the concept of fairness holds sway over our moral sentiments and judgement, it still cannot be a good enough justification for the disapprobation of our fictional Lionel Messi. So what can?

Unfortunately, there are no easy answers. Complicated moral issues such as this boils down to certain subjective sensibilities towards life that most of us possess, and as is the case with the majority of situations concerning the members of our species, it varies between individuals. Nevertheless, a lack of potential consensus should never be a hindrance towards moral discourse, and I attempt to convince the reader that the endeavor to engineer athletes is a pernicious side-effect of the wider quest to have a Promethean, architectural control over the myriad aspects of life. Granted, many of the practical manifestations of such a quest are noble endeavours resulting in the upliftment and welfare of our species but in this particular case, as I have already hinted, the ligature between artificial enhancement and non-medicinal requirements does not deserve our endorsement. The case can be strengthened via a combination of ideas mainly revolving around the concept of giftedness.

In the face of intense pressure and expectations, both from outside and within, there will always be a tendency for athletes to hone their strengths and improve their weaknesses. However, a natural restriction that comes into place is the idea of giftedness and how it acts as a limiting factor in the face of tremendous amounts of hardwork and determination. This is why most of us would agree that despite player X having trained more hours than Cristiano Ronaldo, the former does not deserve a first team place in Real Madrid C.F since, by definition, the ideal that we most seek in sportspeople is excellence and not striving. Cristiano Ronaldo is the best player in Real Madrid C.F because he has cultivated his natural talents through hardwork and determination. If player X expended greater effort at honing his skills even if they were of a lesser quality relative to that of Cristiano Ronaldo's, we still would not think of naming him in the first team list merely because of his striving. The essential point here is that there is a place for giftedness and the honing of it in sports, and we must realize that the Promethean attempt to drastically and artificially compensate for deficit of talents or physiological limitations is, in some sense, a misplaced effort. If the reader is still unconvinced that it is a misplaced effort, then why was Lance Armstrong stripped of all the Tour de France championship medals? Of course, he had knowingly disobeyed a certain code of conduct but more importantly, the knowledge of his doping program greatly shifted the agency of his apparent success from his own efforts and talents to that of steroids and other banned substances. The widespread ire and indignation directed by fans at Armstrong in the wake of this scandal suggests that athletic success, at least from a common standpoint, is a mix of effort and giftedness with the latter given more importance.

Hence, it seems reasonable to assert that we should not engineer our athletes. With science progressing at breakneck speed, the scope for perfectibility, despite it partially being a social construct, will hold sway over our athletes and related professionals, and in the coming decades, there will be no end to what can be improved and enhanced by our increasing mastery of nature. Engineering sportspeople will ultimately corrupt and erode the essence of sports and it will indeed become a battle of scientists rather than the athletes themselves. What seems essential therefore, is to maintain a sense of humility and to realize that not all is under human control, and the need to drastically alter such a status quo by scientific techniques may not be necessarily be good for sports and athletic excellence, unless reasonably justifiable medical issues are involved. It is only in such a state, when giftedness can be honed together with a degree of hardwork and determination that we as spectators can experience the athletic brilliance and sporting magic of Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi without having to entertain the ethical revulsion we had for Lance Armstrong, who was by all means, an engineered athlete.


*[All Souls College, Fellowship Examination, General Paper I (September 2012), Q. 30]

dried parchment

memories are the only treasures
yet they may feel heavy at times.

Luis Buñuel

open your mouth wide open

swallow the entire universe

chew it for three minutes

until all that was never was

spit it out in rings and boxes

immediately leave the scene

or hide behind the curtains

and wait for someone else

to come and make sense

of what is truly nonsense.