Knowing & Becoming

What I know

prevents me from knowing

what I do not know.



What I am

prevents me from becoming

what I am not.



The path that I tread

prevents me from treading

the path that I have never trodden.


. . atrakasya . .

A Constructed Truth

The five senses sense reality.

They send the streaming data to the mind.

The mind compiles the data to create a model of what the world is.

The mind also archives such a model and seeks to integrate further incoming data with a previously created model.

Sometimes some data is missing. One may hear only a sound which one identifies as the sound of a bird and the model incorporates the presence of a bird in the vicinity. In reality it may be an electronic sound.

Thus the mind may also be fooled into believing things because of its complete dependence on previously constructed models which form the basis of interpreting reality.

A magic trick is an example of how one may be so befooled even if one is completely sane and alert.

However, it is the nature of the mind that it fills in the gaps in incomplete data to construct the complete model. This is the source of efficiency - one cannot always see a cube from all 6 sides to know that it is a cube.
And it is also the source of error - one may be fooled into believing that the cube is solid, whereas it may only be made of 3 walls that make it look like a cube from the point that I see.

I can see a wavy shape in the dark and "know" that it is a snake.
This can protect if it is actually a snake.
It can fool if it is a piece of rope.
It can prevent gain if it is actually a thick chain of gold but I run away in fear.

My very "seeing" and "knowing" that it is a snake may be a complete delusion if I have a mental aberration.

Hence, the data coming separately from my 5 senses may be incongruent - what my eyes tell me may not fully match with what my ears tell me. In which case my mind will seek to resolve the incongruency by either looking for further data, or by adopting a previously constructed model to fill in the blanks.

These incongruencies of sensory data are a big help, if one is seeking to construct an sane model of reality.
Sometimes, insanity or irrationality is the ignoring of such incongruencies of data and conditioned adoption of previous models which may be completely or partially inconsistent with the current reality.

It can be seen easily from this that so many times previously constructed models of reality substitute for sensory inputs. And vice-versa.

A movie is actually sensory data of light and sound which substitutes reality in some way.
Or, when I meet a stranger, I "read" the stranger and seek to understand him through previously constructed models of reality. A sloppily dressed person will evoke a certain model of reality which makes me "see" that he is not a particular person. Alternately, I could also see him as a nerdy professor.

Which option I choose as closest to reality is based on a variety of factors. Yet the fact remains that I do not perceive reality - I only see my previously constructed models of reality.

If I did not, I would probably have no way of interpreting the world, I would see the baby in as incoherent a way as a baby sees it.

A baby is the construction of models of reality in its very initial stage.
An adult is someone who has reasonably well constructed models of reality.
An irrational person is someone who has models of reality that either do not match yours, or which are inconsistent within the person himself/herself. The irrationality may also be a model of reality which has been adopted as a survival strategy.

It may help to consider a model of reality in terms of how successful it is or how useful it is, rather than considering whether it is right or not. After all, a certain model of reality may be successful even if the person knows that it is not right (which means, it does not mesh with his central structure of models). For example, the concept of telling "white lies". Most parents will tell their kids not to lie, and yet everyone lies, and yet most people still stick to a substantial amount of a "truthful" mode of living.


Sources of Errors

A being which is concerned with survival will compile data in a manner that is most suitable for survival.
A being which is concerned with gaining something will compile data in a manner that will allow the being to function in a manner optimal to gaining that thing.

This data compilation can be at a surface level, where the being is fully aware of this bias of compilation.
Or, it may be at a point which is very fundamental, which influences the very direction of growth.

As a tree may either lean some leaves towards light.
Or it may lean its main stem towards light and structure its entire growth in that fashion.

However, sooner or later this real need for survival or gain may disappear, and yet one is left with a model that is based on this past need, and one's future intake of data may still continue to be compiled as per this model.

Interestingly, most of the data that one uses to compile one's model of life is necessarily second-hand. Most of the sub-models of one's model will also be second-hand.

One may ask a friend what is the best way to deal with strangers in a strange city and he will advise something which may form one's very basis of dealing with everyone.

One may, as a baby, simply emulate the explosive or fickle or neurotic emotions of one's parents as a survival strategy and this may become so central a part of one's persona that one may not be able to shift from such behaviours upon reaching adulthood.
Which is different from a person emulating an anger that he has seen somewhere to act aggressive in a situation because he perceives that being aggressive will benefit him in the case.

Thus, one also perceives reality through previously constructed models. Soon, one is so used to it that one uses only the slightest reference to reality to activate the inner model.

I can see the tip of a car bumper in my rear-view mirror and "know" that there is a big mac truck behind me. I can reference the movement of this bumper with my environment and know that it is speeding dangerously, right behind me.
The reference from reality is minimal here, yet I can easily take avertive action on the basis of my models of reality which are instantly constructed from data that is highly minimal and which is perceived for only 1/3rd of a second.


Co-joint Models of Reality

It can also be very easily seen that we share models of reality to a great extent.

As pointed out, most of the time we never construct models of reality ourselves, but borrow them from someone. When we read a book or watch a movie or read a poem, we tend to unconsciously borrow the models of reality depicted therein. We may modify these models to fit our own previous models. Or we may outright reject these models if they are not consitent with what we have already possess.

A metaphor often makes us shift our existing model of reality in include another. An insult may often point out an unsavory aspect of a model that we possess, and thus create an emotion of anger at one's own specific model of reality being shown in a negative light.

A culture is a collection of people who share similar models of reality.

Thus, while we tend to believe that we are individuals, we are actually composed of an overwhelming number of such borrowed models. And of course, most of these models are inherited over millennia - passed down, not necessarily from our parents, but from the society that we have lived in, which got them from its predecessors. These models are what are variously referred to as memes or beliefs or ideas. The concept of God or the concept of a certain culture being a negative culture are again models of reality that may have passed down in our specific cultures.

Thus, communication between individuals and societies are means of exchanging these models.

A model of reality is also that all individuals are merely clusters of various models of reality which are linked together - a massive collection of algorithms which connect to form a social model of reality. And every individual may possess internal models that do not fully match that of a social model, if that can ever be pinned down. Yet, they must match the social model in a way that is satisfactory to society, because whether we like it or not, every human has borrowed his models from society. There are some who completely borrow these models and constantly realign themselves with society. Those who do this at a superficial level are often referred to as politically correct humans. Those who refuse to realign their models with society may be called rebels.

Whether politically correct or a rebel, it may be impossible for any individual to claim that he does not owe over 99% of his models of reality to his society and environment. The very formation of our selves has been influenced in a very profound manner by the rest of the individuals we are connected with.

Thus, we seem to be mere components of a larger system.


Conflicting Models of Reality

We all possess models of reality that are not coherent with each other - they have points of conflict, and hence cannot form a consistent structure of such models within ourselves.

When a person has such excessive or overtly apparent incoherency in his models, we call the person as confused. If such incoherence is so over-abundant as to make the person incapable of functioning, then the person may be categorized by society as having mental aberrations. However, even within this person there will be large zones of coherency - its simply that these zones do not agree with each other. Sometimes these zones may match with each other in a twisted fashion, and form a direction of persona that society labels as a psychopath.

Like an individual, even cultures and societies may have these internally incoherent models of reality - which we often tend to refer to as the hypocrisy of society, or the craziness of it all. And not surprisingly, this is reflected within individuals also. After all, society is merely a distributed computing system, and society exists as much within the individual as the individual exists within society.

It may be possible for a person to not be coherent in his relationship with society. This may be because the person has good coherence within himself and his models do not agree with those of society. It may also be that the person has chaotic models. He may also have models which in itself would work fine if he were an isolated unit - Like a serial killer would perhaps have no issues if he lived alone. However, his models are incoherent to the larger society, and hence society takes great pains to identify and cauterize itself of such "aberrations".


The Aliveness of a Model of Reality

While we have hitherto looked at models of reality as relatively static, it is essential to see that it is sometimes closer to being a modular computer program or an algorithm. Thus, an algorithm or a model of reality may be such a very highly useful utility that everyone tends to adopt it.

Again, the concept of "white lies" is one such algorithm that that everyone adopts to iron out some incongruencies within themselves or in their behaviours (which are, of course, the direct results of their models of reality).
However, a good model of reality connects well to other models to form a structure, it may be considered as an algorithm with several connectors and ports.

Thus, a successful model of reality will naturally be used more, and an unsuccessful model of reality will be cast out simply because it does not work. Some models may prove to be useful in emergencies. Some at all times, in the long run.

Because of this ability of a model of reality to connect to other models, each model has the possibility of birth, growth, evolution, modification, death, and propensity to survive. Thus, these models could be said to form a network that is complex and alive, a network which links all of our minds into a gigantic computing system, thus allowing us to take decisions as a society or a culture, as well as individuals.


The Falsehood of all Models of Reality

If we only see reality as a model of reality, then is there any way to see reality without forming models of it? And if so, what use is it exactly? And can one even function without forming such models?
Undoubtedly, one cannot function - the mind would be complete chaos, and the complete dissolution of all such models would be akin to death.
Perhaps the dissolution of all such models, or the superstructure of such models in a very fundamental manner is what our scriptures refer to as the negation of the self, after which one can see the truth.

It is also very easy to see that all models are false - even those which are very close to reality - because they are simply models. A completely accurate model of reality would not be a model in the first place - it would merely reflect what exists in the time that reality is sensed and dissolves the instant one moves away from that reality. By definition, a model of reality is a static capture - its a photograph, which is then used for practical purposes like survival or prosperity.

But in the end, its an illusion - whatever our minds perceive is merely a grand illusion. Like all our scriptures say, it has no reality. The self, the living collection of these models of reality, is simply an artificial construct.

The perception of truth can happen only when there is a perception without the shackles of the self.

-- The End --

THE . . i . .

In a mind, there are multiple minds
Yet the mind functions as one

The beginning of all conflict
is when minds do not integrate with other minds

The greater that conflict among them
the greater the unhappiness for the larger mind

Yet the mind functions as one
Till...some minds separate from the others

Thus begins the suffering
thus the emergence of multiple personalities

it all begins in a lie
starting from that tiny escape

To maintain one lie as the truth
a hundred lies need be conjured

And the lies (that soon become legion)
they form a mind separate

minds that grows secretly in darkness
minds that are inconsistent with other minds

minds that learn to resist other truths
minds that fight for survival, to overcome

Thus does conflict trigger easily by a lie
and sometimes with a lie spoken by others

And peace enters not...till a mind
continues to fight with other minds

nor does that silence enter till one
refuses to lift a gun to fight another gun

But peace comes easily gliding
when minds integrate with others

effortlessly, without an agenda...
as everything is as it is meant to be

Thus it is with the mind of man
Thus it is with the mind of mankind


The devil is that which cleaves apart the one -

whether it comes in the guise of a higher god

or a higher truth

or through a secretive cult

or through a clever lie

or through the illusion of a difference


Verily,

the devil is, but, the separation,
and that which is called god -

Is only that blessed integration...

Art

One form of art is self-expression.

Self expression is that which has no agenda except to express itself, and ideally should not be concerned with the aesthetics of the self-expression.

However, even in this self-expression, there may be an effort to express only that which is beautiful within oneself, and then this makes it a valid form of self-expression.

Yet, there is a strong opinion that cathartic art that makes any effort at manipulating the aesthetics of the self-expression has not reached the point where it truly expresses the self - it is still wrapped up in the "how to express" and thus not manage to reach its agenda of self-expression.

Thus, to account for this we come to another form of art (the commonest form) - art as an selective expression of the self.

Here, the id operates and filters the output of the psyche to express only that which is considered acceptable to it - directly and indirectly. Indeed, it is difficult for most humans to indulge in art as complete self-expression. It has been said that if every human being could completely reveal what lurked within the mind, no human would ever want to hang out with another human - so rank are we from within.

As someone said,
There is so much good in the worst of us
and so much bad in the best of us
that it doesn't become any of us
to talk about the rest of us.

This simple quotation reveals a profound truth that most of us shy away from - that from within, we are as ugly as we are beautiful - no matter what one's definition of beauty is. (For, the very presence of an concept of beauty implies the presence of the concept of ugliness, and therefore a psyche that is not yet beyond beauty will by default also hold an equal amount of ugliness)

And hence, in order to camouflage the unaesthetic self (from others as well as oneself), people resort to art as a selective expression of the self. For, very few humans have the courage to face the ugliness within oneself, while there is none who does not hold some amount of ugliness within.

Another form of art is art as a device for the manipulation of perceptions.

Consider that this definition of art also includes communication (for to communicate is to allow a change of perceptions).
Thus, one may shoot a picture of a beautiful sunset and another can drown in its beauty, and thus, one has effected an alteration of another's neural forms.

Effectively, what happens is that the work of art forms a bridge between two neural networks - they identify a common ground - a common perception of beauty/ugliness/whatever and thus a link is established. Effectively it is like one modem telling another that they speak the same language and have the same protocols, before communication is established.

Another way that this is effected can be observed very simply by considering music and songs.

A lovely song creates a state of receptivity in a closed neural networks - the words rhyme together, the beats are correct, the melody is coherent (in scientific terms - this is referred to as a "neural resonance").
In such a state the mind becomes incredibly receptive to the lyrics that are being disseminated.

The mind works in such a fashion - if it perceives an experience comprising of the complex non-linear parameters of A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J as a beautiful creation, then it also tends to view the individual components as beautiful. Thus, even if components C and H are a bit out of line, they will be seen as beautiful.

A non-beautiful woman in a crowd of attractive women is perceived as more beautiful than she would be on her own.
A mediocre shirt among beautiful shirts has a better chance of being sold.
A beautiful photo of a soldier's pitiable death creates sympathy for the soldier.

(That is why anti-war protestors are keen on pictures of body-bags of soldiers coming home being highlighted, while pro-war protestors want pictures of children offering roses to the soldiers in the attacked country)

A picture of a product (gizmo, alcohol, shirt, whatever) that is accompanied by coherent pictures of beautiful models sells better.
This is the power of association - something that the advertising industry understands implicitly, and this industry forms the largest example of art being used to manipulate perceptions.

If we consider thus that art is a means of the manipulation of perceptions, then it comes as no surprise to us to realize that art is a powerful means of political influence - a means of mass hypnosis.

Hollywood releases movies that directly prepares the minds of th viewers for forthcoming military events. It shows the effects of chemical weapons (The Rock) and the possibility of middle-eastern terrorists exploding nuclear bombs on american soil (True Lies) shortly before the government decided to attack a middle-eastern country for possessing chemical weapons, and for the possibility of participating in attacks on american soil.
The King and I - a brilliantly scripted and thoroughly political musical (that showed the world how the west had a civilizing effect on ignorant eastern countries) came in around the time of the vietnam conflict. (Purportedly a true story, further evidence showed it to be a totally cooked up story, passed off as a true autobiography to create further credibility)

Consider design - how products and graphics are styled appeal to the mind. Beautiful CD covers, beautiful wine labels, beautifully styled gizmos - their beautify prepares the mind to accept that the product is a good/different/cool product. to have. People wear specific brands because the mass hypnotizers have, through elaborate art, imprinted in the minds of the people that wearing those brands is equal to being cool or sexy or powerful.

How many cell phones and computers sell due to styling rather than need-based purchases?
Thus arises classic separation between need and response - a separation that lies towards the root of social and individual irrationality, an irrationality so intelligent that it takes the guise of complete rationality.

Art is a means of manipulating perceptions.

To understand the nature of art is to understand how the self is trapped in illusions.


. . atrakasya . .

Skimming that Layer of Pleasure

The one that pleasures from touch is vulnerable to pain from touch.

The one that pleasures from beautiful music is vulnerable to disturbing noise.

For, pain arises from the same source as pleasure, and they both are entwined so closely that there is no separation between them.

Hence, to reject pain is to reject pleasure and to pursue pleasure is to pursue the same path that leads to pain.

Any effort to skim off only the pleasure (and thus escape its twin) will be hollow - it cannot be done, and eventually leads one back to the same place by a different route.

And yet … with what connivance and intelligence does man seek to skim off only the pleasure and escape the pain!

He hoards money to escape the pain of poverty
He pays for sex (in cash or kind) to escape the travails of a full relationship
He nurtures respectability and status - that he is spared humiliation and scorn
He entertains himself - that he escapes the emptiness of life
He has relationships - that he may fill up the void
He seeks god - that he may avoid pain
He has children - that he may partake of pleasures vicariously
He seeks integration - that he may escape running the gauntlet of pleasure/pain
He hunts for those who have transcended pain and pleasure - that he may do the same
He seeks to escape from escape - that he may be happy

All in vain…for where exists that utopia that one may escape to?

Only in idea, and that idea is forever an illusion - an illusion that there is a way to split life into two poles, and stay at only one of the poles.

Interestingly, life is completely immune to such attempts at splitting - and instead man ends up splitting his own self into a thousand fragments that constantly battle amongst themselves.

There is no path but to embrace everything in its entirity - resistance is futile.
(Perhaps even the embracing may be futile)

Quite simply - there is no choice…for any human.
Jaaye to Jaaye kaha…?

- The End -

On Searching...

He who has never stood on the wrong side of society has never really seen what society is all about and the nature of its beliefs and illusions and truths and hypocrisies.

If one has never been there, it may be safely presumed that one may have taken the easy path, the path that is devoid of danger, originality and courage. For, it is only logical that a person who lives in an original manner cannot help making a journey to the wrong side of society, at sometime or the other, in his life.

From this venturing, comes the direct conflict of life with the existing beliefs within oneself. And from this conflict may come the emergence of one's own perceptions. The without clashes with the within. It is in this conflict, and its aftermath, that the individual may emerge.
Interestingly, lots of times the within is a direct reflection of the without, and their conflict is merely a way of checking the self-integrity of the individual.

Besides, life is such a harsh taskmaster that it enforces this conflict upon everyone, whether one goes out to meet it or not. So it makes sense to meet life in battles of one's own choosing, on quests that are one's own. Ultimately, there is no rule that the conflict will reveal the truth to you - it only promises that it will reveal what you are capable of understanding.

Interestingly, one's capacity to understand is also directly influenced by what one is looking for. Sometimes, one's context is so limited that one is interested in finding truths which are applicable only within a specific context. Hence, one has a choice - to stay within a limited context in life and be happy with the limited truth that operates in that context (There is a Bengali word for this - Kupa-manduk - 'the frog in the well', who thinks that his well is the entire world).
Yet, even in every subset of life, there exists a secret key to dissolving this bounding well and moving to the larger life. Normally, this pathway can be opened by looking at the internal contradictions that exist within the subset. These internal contradictions are what are manifested as sufferings, to every individual, or simply as untruths, inconsistencies.
An honest act of looking at these inconsistencies can simply dissolve the well that the frog is trapped in. The well is the frog's own creation, as well as an illusion wrought by nature and nurture.
The Indic scriptures talk of reaching truth through negation - the classic 'neti, neti' approach ('not this, not this').
The premise is that the truth, being undefinable and without form, can never be identified or reached directly. It is only that which remains when untruths are cast away, saying "this is not the truth'. Thus, they speak of the same thing - that one may break out of one's well of limitations and glimpse reality by identifying the untruths.

Hence, clarity of perception never comes about as a result of staying confortably and safely ensconced in one's beliefs - it comes from venturing boldly into life, testing out one's beliefs, with the values of the social system that one has to co-exist with. Barring such experimentation, one is doomed to accepting the cliches of morality and perceptions and stereotypes as handed down by others.

As the mystic Kabir says -
Jin khojiya, tin paiya - gehrey paani paith,
mai bauri khojan chali, gayi kinaarey baith.

(They who sought, found - by venturing into the deep waters.
But I, in my ignorance, tried to seek, but was content sitting at the edge of the waters)

There are many who like to stay within the boundaries of respectability based on social convention. Indeed, some respect is warranted for social convention. Simple consideration for others and manners are as charming as they are essential for smooth functioning of society.

Yet, we often let our lives be ruled by the effort of staying within the boundaries of social convention, and then its a short step to trying to be 'good', as per the rules of the social convention. To break a social convention then becomes a taboo, and to fit into it becomes an ideal of perfection. Often, the mind fools itself by adopting a society that it considers more liberal than other societies and convinces itself that it is liberal and free, since it adopts what is considered the liberal paradigm.

And at the end of it, we stay in the same trap of our minds - in the well that is constructed of limited truths, and clamour for a freedom and respectability that is still within the bounds of our limited worlds.

As Rumi says,
There is a field beyond all notions of right and wrong.
Come, meet me there....

It is a fact that mystics have insisted on a reality beyond notions of good and bad, beyond black and white. Do they mean that one is free to sin, or that one operates in a self-contradictory manner?
Perhaps they mean only this - that real morality and the truth are beyond the social construct - that they transcend it, and without transcending these social conditionings, there is no real meaning to morality other than as a tool for organizing society.

.. atrakasya ..

Beyond the Horizon of Causality

------------------------------------------

God is the Intelligence of Causality

Intelligence is the Causality of God

Causality is the Intelligence of God

Intelligence is the God of Causality

God is the Causality of Intelligence

Causality is the God of Intelligence

------------------------------------------