WAPO: China’s Watchful Eye
Moved blog again
This blog goes back to 2003, though I’ve made most of the early posts private. Over this period it’s been on various blogging platforms on a number of hosts. Sometimes I’ve taken it offline, or marked the whole thing as private. I also do quite a lot of writing offline, in text files or in paper notebooks. For the last few months I’ve been doing the latter. Then I learned about Nearlyfreespeech.com, and decided to move it there. It was a little hard to set up, but certainly wasn’t the hardest hosting arrangement I’ve struggled with, and the transfer went smoothly. I thought about buying a Genesis theme that I fancied, then decided to use Weaver Extreme. Weaver really offers a flexible and easy framework and is fine especially for the minimalistic look I want, with a separation between different post categories. For now, I’ve removed the photo albums I’d started to establish, in order to keep storage space down and the hosting cheap. For now, I’m happy with the result. I’ll probably do a couple of other things later, like adding a Let’s Encrypt certificate.
Workers held captive in Indian mills supplying Hugo Boss
“Luxury fashion retailer Hugo Boss said it has found cases of forced labour, a form of modern slavery, in its supply chain. Young female workers have been held captive behind the walls of garment factories in southern India and prevented from leaving the premises at any time.”
… around Tirupur, Palladam and Dindigul in Tamil Nadu. Sulochana cotton mills and Sri Shanmugavel mills.
From The Hindu: HC direction to govt. on ‘Sumangali’ scheme “The Madras High Court has directed the State government to analyse the conclusions and recommendations given by District Monitoring Committees, which have suggested strong measures against the alleged practice of camp coolie system in the name of Sumangali system in textile mills across the State.”
After seeing Bladerunner 2049
All is in God. The reason that God is conceived as the Creator in the Middle Eastern/Western religions is that the Divine Consciousness is a fount of imagination – from the imagination can emerge limitless manifestations. We exist as projections of this Divine Consciousness and, from our position of blindness, try to probe the limits of our existence. We ask whether other planets, other civilizations exist in the universe and the answer is ultimately that they do if God wants them to. We know what God wants us to know. There are no limits to the imagination of the Divine – there are only limits to our human imagination, our human perception, our human understanding.
Hollywood is a kind of metaphor for the Divine Consciousness. Films create a convincing reality that often exceeds the limits of what exists in our current mode. The characters in the Bladerunner, some of them androids or replicants try to come to grips with what it means to have memories and thoughts that may not be theirs but someone else’s. The question of how they differ from humans arises. They question the value of their existence if it is only artificial and temporary. The filmmakers do not answer these questions for us. They themselves are caught in the same Ignorance as we human beings are caught. We cannot see truth from within the prison of our existence as representational beings within the imagination of the Divine.
Private blogging
It is difficult to find a good way of keeping a personal journal across different computers; or even to find software that keeps a journal nicely. On Linux I’ve experimented with Redbook, and for years have also been using a plain text filing system that uses a regimented form of the file name to keep track. However I’m thinking now that a better way may be to use WordPress for this purpose, as, irrespective of whether the journal is shared or private, the writing environment is now pleasant, clean and easy to use, and the journal is always available, whether the blog is shared or otherwise.
I was looking also at Vivaldi’s community. They have also started to use WordPress for blogs, which seems sensible rather than diverting valuable time and attention to developing their own blogging platform. I have to admit, I was tempted. But I learned something from my previous experience with Opera (as well as with other platforms). Opera created a really nice networked blogging system that was supposed to be bulletproof, or proof against ever removing it, since it was also the basis of a community around Opera itself. However, eventually they scrapped it. It was very unfortunate. Vivaldi is a nice browser, but, like many small tech companies, it’s all dependent upon one man. If were suddenly to sell out to a larger company, be killed in a car accident, or whatever, the future of Vivaldi would be questionable. So it’s better to stay with a company like Automattic whose future is more secure.
Divinity
I wonder still, about using this term “divine”, because it seems to be tainted with the same problem which I think we need to overcome in order to obtain a more real vision:
– the problem of everyday vision is one of outlook: we think of ourselves as separate subjects, and therefore see a universe of separate objects.
– when we use the term “divine” we are doing something similar. We are seeking or imagining what we define in advance as something bigger, broader, vaster than, or perhaps more important or senior to, ourselves.
Actually definitions are a product of our finite understanding. A definition is something that limits, sets a boundary around (Finite and definition are from the same root.) In Hebrew, the word hagdara (definition) is from the same root as Gader (fence). So, to define something is to put a fence around it. When we use the word “God” or deva (Sanskrit for God, which is related to our word “Divine”), we make God into a finite thing, or concept, whereas we are really trying to indicate something which cannot be defined, and which does not fit tidily into our finite understanding: something infinite. And, according to Hindu philosophy, name (nama) goes with form (rupa). So in Judaism it is forbidden to represent God by either, and when Moses asks God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”, the deity replies to Moses, “I am who I am (or “I will be who I will be”). This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.”. In other words, he said about himself all that a deity could say, without committing the error of self-definition as name and form. If we want to be true to ourselves, we must do the same.
When someone asks us whether we believe in God, they are really asking us whether we believe in a finite concept (the finite concept they know as “God”). The question itself is self-contradictory, because if God exists, it is as something far beyond any definition by which we can bind him. So how are we supposed to answer that question? Saying that we believe in God means that we deny the reality of God as something beyond our beliefs and definitions. Saying that we are atheists means that we do not believe in God as a concept (but perhaps we do still understand that there is a reality that transcends our separative vision). Saying that we are agnostics means that we think that the existence or non-existence of this false definition of “God” is unprovable, which is nonsense.
This is what Rumi (Mevlana Jellaludin Rumi, the Sufi saint) had to say about it: “Out beyond the ideas of faith (iman) and infidelity (kufr) there is a field: I will meet you there.” (the verse is usually poorly translated, but makes perfect sense when the words kufr and iman are translated properly and the meaning is approached in the spirit of the previous paragraph.)
Still I think the glue that binds reality into one undifferentiated whole is best represented as love. Love does not suffer the same flaws as our finite intellectual definitions. It “knows no bounds”, and so, to Rumi, and to so many others in theistic religions, God, or the infinite reality, is often regarded as “the beloved”. But in non-theistic religions also, like Buddhism, a spirit of gratitude and love are just as important.
In terms of gratitude, we are not thankful to someone (the deity) for something. Both are a product of our separative vision. If a butterfly appears before us and gives us joy, then we are, according to a more integrative vision, thankful to all of reality which has chosen in this moment to appear before us in the guise of a butterfly.
Reading The Ministry of Utmost Happiness
Not utmostly impressed so far with Arundhati Roi’s new novel. It’s kind of all over the place and I’m not sure who I, the reader, am supposed to be. Political writing, and I suppose any type of writing, from India has to decide who it is written for. In my opinion, the best writing doesn’t try to be over-accommodating. Sonia Faleiro, for example, in “Beautiful Thing: Inside the Secret World of Bombay’s Dance Bars” didn’t make things at all easy for a non-Indian reader. As a result, there was a lot that I didn’t understand. But that was fine – it was even fine with a British newspaper that declared it to be one of the best books of the year. Roi tries, sometimes in a rather convoluted way to try to explain political issues or historical events, in long boring asides. At other times she goes to extraordinary measures not to mention politicians by name, though it’s perfectly obvious enough who she is talking about. I don’t get it. I can’t imagine that she is keeping anyone happy; either an Indian or well-informed non-Indian reader on the one hand, or a foreigner who knows little about India or its issues.
With regard to the content, I haven’t encountered much that is new to me, though I’m admittedly comparatively well read in her subject matter. What I enjoy most about Indian novels is the story telling. Indians seem to have some kind of innate ability to create interesting characters and tell amazing stories about them. And the best writers, among whom I count Rohinton Mistry and Amitav Ghosh, also know how to weave politics and history into their writing expertly and keenly. In the same way as a Charles Dickens brings 19th century London to life, Mistry can make me feel like I know 20th century Bombay from the inside. Anita Desai and Vikram Seth perform a kind of magic in translating a world that is completely foreign and making me feel at home in it. Reading U. R. Ananthamurthy is almost like encountering an anthropological study, but in a completely enjoyable way. Arundhati Roi seems less sure of herself. Perhaps she is trying too hard. I feel like I need to winnow away some of the chaff in order to get at the grain of what she is trying to tell me.
More later, when I’ve finished the novel.
Being a guest
There’s a lot to be said in favor of simply being a guest in a guest house. Here I am in Arka, in Auroville, staying here for the 5th or 6th time I reckon. They know me. I know them. They give me the same room each time. It keeps improving from year to year. Last year they made a door ledge to stop the scorpions getting in. This time they gave me a fridge. When I come, it takes me 20 minutes to unpack and set everything up, as I know where to put all of my few belongings. I know about the quirks of the water system and the wifi; the place in the room where the phone is most likely to get a signal; how to get a wifi signal by placing the antenna above the window mesh. I know what clothing and other items I’ll need to bring.
At a guest house, the client is king. There are not a lot of expectations on either side to deal with. I’m a quiet undemanding guest. I have few needs and could stay here forever. But if anything ever goes wrong with the relationship, it isn’t hard to find a similar guest house and set up there.
This is actually much better than either owning property or being beholden to somebody – an ashram, say. The few rules that exist are easy to abide by, the responsibilities are minimal. I determine my daily schedule. If I feel like getting up at night to do a little writing like now, I may. If I feel like taking a nap in mid-morning, it’s fine. And I’m old and mature enough to strike a balance and not to let too much freedom become a problem. So I’m sold on guest houses in familiar places. This is a perfect arrangement for summer.
Liberty Might Be Better Served by Doing Away with Privacy
Liberty Might Be Better Served by Doing Away with Privacy
Motherboard has an interesting article by Zoltan Istvan, “futurist, transhumanist, author of The Transhumanist Wager, and a Libertarian candidate for California Governor.”
“Privacy, broadly thought of as essential to a democratic society, might disappear.”
“While privacy has long been considered a fundamental right, it has never been an inherent right,” Jeremy Rifkin, an American economic and social theorist, wrote in The Zero Marginal Cost Society. “Indeed, for all of human history, until the modern era, life was lived more or less publicly, as befits most species on Earth.”
“For many, this constant state of being monitored is concerning. But consider that much of our technology can also look right back into the government’s world with our own spying devices and software.”
“But it’s not just government that’s a worry. It’s also important that people can track companies, like Google, Apple, and Facebook that create much of the software that tracks individuals and the public. This is easier said than done, but a vibrant start-up culture and open-source technology is the antidote.”
“If no one can hide, then no one can do anything wrong without someone else knowing. That may allow a better, more efficient society with more liberties than the protection privacy accomplishes.”
“Like the Heisenberg principle, observation, changes reality. So does a lack of walls between you and others. A radical future like this would bring an era of freedom and responsibility back to humanity and the individual. We are approaching an era where the benefits of a society that is far more open and less private will lead to a safer, diverse, more empathetic world. We should be cautious, but not afraid.”
Everything subject to doubt
What we have been taught by parents and teachers is doubtful.
What we are told by neighbours and friends is likely to be mistaken.
Our perception, experience and understanding are not to be trusted.
Common sense is a bit of a joke.
Reason, gut-feelings, mind and heart are all fallible.
Nations are unscrupulous and untrustworthy.
Leaders and politicians all the more so.
Merchants of goods and services are out for our money.
Scientists have a limited and therefore distorted understanding of reality.
Medical professionals test out this distorted understanding of reality on our bodies.
No guru is to be trusted – many are proven charlatans, and about the others, who can say?
Scriptures are not to be trusted; they mostly cause only mischief.
We can rely on nothing, only quietly make our way through life, holding all assumptions up to scrutiny, and not trusting the conclusions we reach.
Language, based on words and verbal associations, is itself inadequate to express anything real; and when left unexpressed, our intimations or reality remain vague and foggy.
We can
Spend a lot of time in silence, just being.
Unravel and reject conditioned responses.
Break down all old connections and imposed patterns.
Reject everything we think we know, see what if anything remains.
There is nothing to be afraid of.
Nothingness itself is not scary, only what we put in it.