bipin: rant

bipin (

bipin) wrote,
@ 2006-10-11 11:08:00

rant

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high... - Rabindranath Tagore
If we didn't exist, would love?

No. This is not a rhetorical question. I really want to know your answer. Before you go on. Think.

If the world in its magnificence stood, with pillowy clouds and fleeting birds perched on them; with marble sculptures yet to be scraped out from desolate stone and summery winds atop; and all that was missing was you and me and her and him and every single human. If we all disappeared, would the universe still house love?

Ok, let's twist the question a bit. Since you're so full of shit and are convinced that you do know the answer. Would 'good' and 'bad' exist if we didn't? Would the fiery lava burning out the ant-hill down the slope be bad? Would you term the dark sweeps bringing rain onto parched land as being good? Would the lion twisting the neck of the gazelle, punching holes into its cartilage, squeezing the sorry pangs of air out of its prey be bad? Would the Universe label any action or any consequence as good or bad?

I'll tell you. If you've got an ounce of sense in that befuddled head of yours, you'll be with me here. No. Good did not exist. Not until we invented it.

And then we return to what we'd started off with before. If we didn't exist, and neither did good, could love?

Love can be defined only in the context of good and bad. Listen carefully. Again: any action that we perceive as being good to another entity is defined to be an act of love. And an action to its contrary - an act of hate.

If we didn't exist, and neither did good or bad, love fails to be.

And entrenched somewhere in this complete nonsense, architected by the sissy, trembling pillars of love and hate is your 'sense of morality'. That some actions are worthier than others. That some ideas are worthier than others. That murder is wrong. That the gods decried that eating pussy is far holier than sucking cock. That throwing acid on a lost love is protecting your honour. That flashing your tits is obscene and we should have moral-laws against it. That being forced to hide your face with a veil however is a violation of human rights. That fighting a man is worse than going behind his back and cussing.
That she's not yours if she's not yours.

That some people are more moral than others solely because they adhere to some of those abberant notions. Of good. Of love.

Love cannot exist. And morality wholly dependant on love does not exist. Morality is a construct in your head, twisted and forged and beaten, cast in iron-shingles and convinced to be a part of you. Just because you believe it exists; just because you can't imagine life as being amoral; just because your pathetic vision of reality relies on a grandiose purpose, according to which you'll be judged for eternity. Just because you want to believe that we have a base morality that we're born with.

If every single human was convinced that at the centre of the Earth, was a giant, humongous over-sized diamond, would it spring into existence? If ever single human in this planet was convinced that morality existed, would morality spring into existence? I repeat: morality is a construct in your head. It does not exist.

Anything - love, hate, good, bad, morality - that dwells exclusively in our minds is just that - a long winded fantasy that your motherâs other breast fed you.

Worse, morality's got this sickeningly mediocre after-taste to it, forcing you to live your life by a deranged, inconsistent, illusory mental image of rules which make little sense outside of your sick head. You’re ill, I tell you. Delusional at best. You've got now to live. You will not exist further, and you've not existed before. Go out. Be one with the universe. A universe which has no such rules. Do what you desire.

Bite her lip until warm, dark red blood spurts out, trickling down into your sinful tongue. Make love to her until you can't go on, until she can't breathe. Until you can feel your soul being ripped out from you. Until every single cell in your body is in utter and complete pain.

He does not exist in your love story. It's you. And her. For eternity. Go on. Be strong. Be your hero.

And then be thrown into prison or a mad-house for acting against ephemeral lines of morality conjured by a deranged, trapped humankind.

(Post a new comment)

	(Anonymous) 2006-10-11 06:15 pm UTC (link)
	Just because you believe it exists; just because you can't imagine life as being amoral; its immoral.. not amoral (Reply to this) (Thread)

	bipin 2006-10-11 06:22 pm UTC (link)
	Nope. Amoral it is. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	adityaferrari 2006-10-11 07:16 pm UTC (link)
	mind boggling stuff... it achieves greater levels of profoundness the more and more i read it !!! wonderful train of thot ... and atriculation, normally dont read long posts of yours... i can see how much i have missed. suppa :) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	teemus 2006-10-11 11:28 pm UTC (link)
	Swami Bipinananda Amoralia speaketh. (Reply to this)

	floopilot 2006-10-11 11:41 pm UTC (link)
	> Do what you desire. Do you seriously believe that it's just 'morality' that's stopping you(anybody)? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	bipin 2006-10-12 08:46 am UTC (link)
	Yes. Morality for the most bit. Maybe empathy too. Sometimes. That's a leading question though. What did you have in mind? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	floopilot 2006-10-12 07:31 pm UTC (link)
	Well, I don't think morality stops anybody from doing anything, if they really really want to do it. It's just an easy excuse for cowardice, fear, apathy and a whole lot of other things .. Empathy, I'm not so sure. Towards whom? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

bipin
2006-10-13 06:36 am UTC (link)

It's just an easy excuse for cowardice, fear, apathy
I agree. Fear (and cowardice to overcome that fear), and apathy. And in that, it would be fear poses far greater opposition than apathy does. Wouldn't you agree?

And then, of course, comes the question - fear of what? Of arbritrary moral rules enforced by the state. You aren't not walking on the streets dressed as you please because you 'naturally prefer to', but because you're subconsciously adhering to moral laws which dictate exposing some parts of your body (your shoulders, for example) is immoral. Now don't go saying 'oh, if you really want to, you still can.' You know it's a lot more complex than that.

I don't think morality stops anybody from doing anything,
Well, fear of imprisonment for violating moral-laws does.

The sad bit is, though, that we're so enveloped by these laws that we pretend it's our 'choice' to be as we are.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	noelladsa 2006-10-12 10:16 am UTC (link)
	..then be thrown into prison or a mad-house for acting against ephemeral lines of morality conjured by a deranged, trapped humankind. And I always thought morality boiled down to convenience.But hey looks like we may no longer be a trapped mankind for too long!. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	bipin 2006-10-12 10:39 am UTC (link)
	Do you mean 'convenience' as in natural? Like in it's natural for us to be good or moral. Or did you mean convenience as in 'wholly advantageous to certain people, maybe even the majority'. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	noelladsa 2006-10-12 02:11 pm UTC (link)
	Convenience for the majority.Control human behaviour so that no one has to watch their backs at all times. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

bipin
2006-10-13 06:54 am UTC (link)

That's an interesting view - that morality/ethics is enforced to benefit the majority of humankind. Utilitarianism is what I think it's officially called.

But then, a society who's rules are based purely on Utilitarianism will collapse. Take Kant's(?) hypothetical hospital-situation for example:
You walk into a hospital, to get a prescription for a common-cold. The hospital that you chose houses two patients, each with only one kidney. Now, let's assume that a human absolutely has to have two kidneys for survival. Since your kidneys are absolutely fine, Utilitarianism would suggest that you give up both your kidneys, thereby saving two lives at the cost of one.

Obviously, such laws defy 'common-sense' and predictably lead to chaos. Further, how would you explain 'honour' like in the case of Sati, or like in the case of the spurned lover's antics to mutilate his love - with Utilitarianism?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	anomalizer 2006-10-15 02:31 pm UTC (link)
	Morality is universal multipartite opt-out treaty (Ha! I can use adjectives). Every new addition to the society is automatically assumed to be someone who honours it (universal), every existing member is expected to deal with every other memeber in the same way (multipartite) and things enter the grey area wrt to the person who chooses to defy it (opt-out). (Reply to this) (Parent)

anomalizer
2006-10-15 02:41 pm UTC (link)

When it comes to utilitarianism, there is a simple way to beat the example you offered. Patient 'A' & 'B' were gonna die anyways. You were not going to die. The objective is to maximize the number of people who survive. We leave your kidneys the way they are, take one kidney from either 'A' or 'B' and hand it over to the other. That way someone who was not going to die does not die, someone who was going to die dies and someone who was going to die lives. We still have 2 out of 3 people surviving which was the best we could achieve with 4 kidneys at our disposal and more importantly, no one's situation has become any worse than it was before.

Obviously, such laws defy 'common-sense'
Obviously killing you as a solution was a work of an incompetent decision maker, not a failure of utilitarianism (at least in that example).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

bipin
2006-10-15 04:18 pm UTC (link)

...take one kidney from either 'A' or 'B' and hand it over to the other...
Absolutely. The solution you suggested would work just fine. Whats interesting to note, however, I believe, is that the solution suggested in the earlier comment is still consistent with Utilitarianism.

The larger point I think I was trying to make is that in some cases, numbers aren't the only factor in the decision making process. To move from a Kant's hypothetical situation to a more concrete one - slavery (or over-riding any rights of a minority) would be justifiable in a system based purely utilitarianism.
There's this whole bunch of things like measuring 'goodness', humanitarianism and requirement for perfect knowledge which weaken Utilitarianism's case, I think.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

noelladsa
2006-11-11 10:30 am UTC (link)

Well as I look at it Utilitarianism is an attempt at formalizing what naturally happens in a society and as you said ..to extremes.
I would still say morality 'emerged' out of the human need to live in a society and that too amicably.
Because somehow I don't think right and wrong would matter if we were solitary.
But then again right and wrong would differ from society to society :D.Human sacrifice,polygamy etc acceptable in some.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	contradiction (Anonymous) 2006-10-12 04:36 pm UTC (link)
	>>> He does not exist in your love story. It's you. And her. For eternity. Go on. Be strong. Be your hero. "love" story? be "strong"? be your "hero" ? what are these constructs doing in your argument? :-) (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: contradiction bipin 2006-10-13 07:03 am UTC (link)
	Ummn .. that didn't really belong to my argument. My argument on the fallacy of morality ended just before I went into 'Worse, morality's got this ...'. After that, I'm talking about the consequences of abandoning morality as I see it. You've got a point though - I think I should have demarcated it better. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	fus 2006-10-12 04:43 pm UTC (link)
	http://jace.livejournal.com/432477.html (Reply to this) (Thread)

	bipin 2006-10-13 07:42 am UTC (link)
	I read the (rather interesting) entry, but how exactly do you see it fit in with the discussion on the existance of morality? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	fus 2006-10-13 07:46 am UTC (link)
	in my head i have always associated conformity with morality, that the desire to conform evolves to a set of morals, impersonal morality. strictly my opinion. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	bipin 2006-10-13 01:43 pm UTC (link)
	So, are you of the opinion that most of us are born with a certain set of morals, and that (some) morality is somehow hardwired into the human brain? Is it this base set of rules (maybe 'rules' is too hard - notions maybe?) that each one of us wants to conform to, which we then brand as morality? Or have I totally misunderstood you?</i> (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	fus 2006-10-13 02:36 pm UTC (link)
	misunderstood mon ami. no, i do not think anything is hardwired. why is it that when i slam that hardbound book onto a housefly on a window i feel a rush. we want to survive (the only truth perhaps). we see we have to conform (this i do not think is an active process). and to conform leads us to morals. an accepted set of values. (Reply to this) (Parent)

morality and evolution
(Anonymous)
2006-10-12 04:47 pm UTC (link)

here's a new twist. morality is the ultimate product of evolution. These rules and boundaries, the definition of right and wrong, the definition of what is good and and what is bad, is why we are the most evolved species on the planet. it is this very system that has ensured our survival and growth beyond any other species. Social paradigms aren't absent in other species, they are just primitive.

And you, my friend, are the last person I thought who would say that a product of evolution leaves a "sickeningly mediocre aftertaste" :-)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	pic (Anonymous) 2006-10-12 04:54 pm UTC (link)
	good pic, btw. how long did it take maggu to get it. like a million tries ? :-) (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: morality and evolution

bipin
2006-10-13 07:15 am UTC (link)

... is why we are the most evolved species on the planet ...
I've had this argument with you before. Just because we have the most complex brain, it does not make us the 'most evolved species'.

it is this very system that has ensured our survival and growth beyond any other species.
How do you make this assertion?

And you, my friend, are the last person I thought who would say that a product of evolution leaves a "sickeningly mediocre aftertaste" :-)
Haha. Nice try. Tell me that I'm working against myself, and thus abandon all attempts to argue :))

Evolutionary psychology is a behavioural science. Not a justification system. It might attempt to explain why certain behavioral patterns might infest in organisms. It however is quiet on whether that behaviour is 'good' or 'bad'.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: morality and evolution
(Anonymous)
2006-10-13 05:33 pm UTC (link)

>... is why we are the most evolved species on the planet ...
>>I've had this argument with you before. Just because we have the most complex brain, it does not make us the 'most evolved species'.

our complex brain is what is responsible for all the achievements of our species. these achievements are why we are the most evolved species.

>it is this very system that has ensured our survival and growth beyond any other species.
>>How do you make this assertion?

consider what has been defined as "good" and "bad". helping save lives is defined as good. murder has been defined as bad. This can be interpreted as "let other members of your species live - its good for the species". scientific temper - helping in the advancement of science and technology is defined as good. we have reward systems in place that encourage people to do good. and punishment for what is defined as bad. It is this system that has led to the vast advances in science, technology, humanities etc. These advances have indisputably made our life safer, better, longer. These advances have helped our species to dominate this planet and have been possible only because of the system in place.

>And you, my friend, are the last person I thought who would say that a product of evolution leaves a "sickeningly mediocre aftertaste" :-)
>>Haha. Nice try. Tell me that I'm working against myself, and thus abandon all attempts to argue :))
at least give me credit for not simply agreeing with you to avoid an argument :D

>Evolutionary psychology is a behavioural science. Not a justification system. It might attempt to explain why certain behavioral patterns might infest in organisms. It however is quiet on whether that behaviour is 'good' or 'bad'.

science by itself does not define what is "good" and "bad". It is just an enabler. Our social system is what attempts to enforce what is on top. You could argue that our species has put the "good" and "bad" system in place to ensure that members of the species are rewarded for furthering our survival.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: morality and evolution

bipin
2006-10-14 10:38 am UTC (link)

these achievements are why we are the most evolved species.
Huh? What does achievement (measured that too, in human terms) have anything to do with evolution?? You've got really strange ways to grading how evolved a species is.

This can be interpreted as "let other members of your species live - its good for the species"
And that's why it's acceptable to stone people to death? And that's why Sati was/is considered honourable?
scientific temper - helping in the advancement of science and technology is defined as good.
Hmmn. So the persecution of Galileo, the oppsition to innoculation, the ban on the use of condoms by the Church, the burning of stem-cell research labs - are all for the advancement of science and technology?

You could argue that our species has put the "good" and "bad" system in place to ensure that members of the species are rewarded for furthering our survival.
You could argue, but you lose :D
The view that the species is the unit of evolution has long been debunked. 'The Selfish Gene' by Dawkins is a fun book to read on the matter.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: morality and evolution

bipin
2006-10-14 10:51 am UTC (link)

>it is this very system that has ensured our survival and growth beyond any other species.
>>How do you make this assertion?

consider what has been defined as "good" and "bad". helping save lives is defined as good. murder has been defined as bad. This can be interpreted as "let other members of your species live - its good for the species". scientific temper - helping in the advancement of science and technology is defined as good. we have reward systems in place that encourage people to do good. and punishment for what is defined as bad. It is this system that has led to the vast advances in science, technology, humanities etc. These advances have indisputably made our life safer, better, longer. These advances have helped our species to dominate this planet and have been possible only because of the system in place.
I also like how you slide the argument from 'how has morality ensured our survival and growth' (the original question) to 'how has science and technology ensured our survival and growth' :p
You really should get onto these TV channel debates. Very similar strategies :))

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	vinit 2006-10-12 05:17 pm UTC (link)
	Wow, your deep-thought posts get the most number of anonymous comments. How do we see that in the context of the current discussion ... Do these people think discussion about/against such beliefs itself is against moral normality, and so hide under the cloak of anonymity? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	not really... (Anonymous) 2006-10-12 06:29 pm UTC (link)
	bipin knows exactly who I am. he also knows I am too lazy to sign up for an account :P (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: not really... adityaferrari 2006-10-13 08:11 am UTC (link)
	maggu took that pic????? bullshit (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: not really... bipin 2006-10-13 08:18 am UTC (link)
	Yep. Maggu it is. In one shot too. Of course, it's the subject that makes the photo what it is :D (Reply to this) (Parent)

	sweta_mogra 2006-10-14 02:34 pm UTC (link)
	Ok! I just passed out! After reading your love story, I'd rather have love not exist if we humans didn't. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	bipin 2006-10-15 04:55 pm UTC (link)
	Finally! Someone who agrees that we decide whether love (and morality) exists or not. Prepare well miss, we've got quite a few to battle. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	anomalizer 2006-10-15 02:17 pm UTC (link)
	What are you trying to do? Identify concepts that are created by humans, say that since this is purely a creation of humans, maybe it should exist in the first place? (Reply to this) (Thread)

bipin
2006-10-15 04:38 pm UTC (link)

... that since this is purely a creation of humans, maybe it should exist in the first place? ..
I'm assuming you meant 'maybe it should NOT exist'

Well, no. Not really.

I loathe people who go around insisting that the Universe came packaged with divine morality. That morality was not invented by us and is absolute and not open to question or flouting. That they are not just mere guidelines.

What I want to get across is that, sometimes, we need to break the cages in our heads. Free ours minds of the fear (like Tagore so eloquently words). And realize that living is more important than a few archaic rules . Take a breath of fresh air, and dare to defy constrictive, arbitrary laws. To have the courage.

Or the stupidity.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	anomalizer 2006-10-15 05:20 pm UTC (link)
	I'm assuming you meant 'maybe it should NOT exist' Yeah, my bad (Reply to this) (Parent)

	prasannav 2006-10-17 08:13 am UTC (link)
	I ll need to read the post atleast 3 more times and the following comments atleast a couple of times before i get hold of the context and post a real comment. quite some work this :( (Reply to this) (Thread)

	bipin 2006-10-17 08:26 am UTC (link)
	Hahaha. Don't worry. It's just me being pretentious. Maybe you can say something like 'Let's agree to disagree'. Immediate pseudo-intellectual points for both of us. Yay! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	adityaferrari 2006-10-17 09:12 am UTC (link)
	yes i do agree, its a wonderful post. i think yu need to educate the young minds of today, more on such delicate topics. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	bipin 2006-10-17 09:23 am UTC (link)
	(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	adityaferrari 2006-10-18 05:50 am UTC (link)
	rem our deal ;) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2006-10-21 07:21 am UTC (link)
	its a pleasure reading ur posts dude....though this one was thot provoking and complex!! hey wats hap with the mysterious girl (Post:Ocean beach).....just a lil curious to know :) (Reply to this)

	brimfulofasha 2006-10-25 02:19 pm UTC (link)
	I think life is empty and meaningless. It is I who give meaning to my life. Hence without me how can love exist? Also I like what you write. I am adding you to my friends list. Hope that is okay! (Reply to this) (Thread)

	bipin 2006-10-31 04:53 am UTC (link)
	I think life is empty and meaningless. It is I who give meaning to my life. That's clinically cold. And beautiful in a way only truth can be. I couldn't have said it better. I am adding you to my friends list. Hope that is okay! Oh, you don't have to ask. And I'm doing the same, so we're even now. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs