An October 24, 2019 post by Zadie Smith in New York Review of Books, inspired this essay. So I would like to duly acknowledge it by sharing its link.
The human mind is a dumping ground for all kinds of thought-material. This is a pretty outrageous statement to make, considering the above article. But so is the use of the adjective 'outrageous'. This sort of conjecture keeps engaging me and my actions and hence unpopularity with certain individuals around me.
It seems that confusion, especially in issues of the daily, from - where to eat, what to eat, whether to go on a vacation, if yes where to go, should I read a particular book or not - to major life decisions - everything is dictated by a pressure of definition, certainty, a defined state.
Doubt has always characterised my decisions. Whether the resulting judgements (if I can call them that) have proved fruitful is another long story? But I want to believe in the state of anarchy in my mind and become a trouble for myself. Yet, I want to defend this state vehemently, or perhaps I think I do.
Just as fiction cannot be contained as Zadie Smith argues, is my nature to refuse categorisation an act of empathy? And if so, does it yield results in day-to-day life? Perhaps no, so should making a final call all the time, in all of the things be second-nature to every human. Should it bring definite consequences?
No, I don't think so. Aspects of humanity and human life live and thrive on the 'hanging' state of being. Whether Brexit is a good decision, Israel-Palestine conflict, Indo-Pak war has a definite conclusion or my belief in certain things like religion or nationalism is absolute and unwavering cannot be determined. Every contentious action and reaction will be judged with time. Maybe never. In defence of confusion, I would say it is very natural to delay any prospective firm measure, usually a very popular discourse at all times in history.
Just like Zadie Smith, even I had this inkling that my life is a result of hundreds of co-incidences converging to define the undefined moments. So, I too, like Zadie Smith, had no deep convictions with respect to many of the positions that I hold now. I wouldn't have been writing this piece if there was a great movie playing in front of me or I got the most unexpected of phone calls which would redefine my mood, outlook and thinking space.
Phone call reminds me of social media. I don't like the nature of influence it has on contemporary life but I am too feebly-convinced of its demerits to defend or act against it or work without it. People around challenge me to follow my instinct when through the course of extremely casual interactions, I make a sweeping statement like, 'I don't like social media'. Hence the terms, weakling, coward, cry-baby and somehow betrayer get associated with my existence.
But I contain multitudes within me which respect voices on both sides. These aren't 'either-or' voices but shades of grey based on influences from real-life interactions, reading books, experiences with people, places and things and situations.
Resulting in...?
So comes the chorus of thought as well as humanity around. Again, I propose - why does this debate in my head need a conclusion? To conclude is to deny the role of uncertainties which have forever shaped the condition of humanity. Has any conflict ever resolved in vindication of one side, if we take into consideration the broader perspective, not symbolism or significance for a particular kind of space-time continuum?
Again, a classic rebuttal to me trying to reason inside, is the imposition of order as a necessary scheme to follow if existence has to move ahead. For example, a sports fixture, no matter how equally good or bad the opposing teams, needs a logical conclusion for many factors to move on. On a football ground, with the most ideal conditions of form, fitness, coaching and facilities, there is no guarantee what permutation and combination will be on display. But people take a stance, deliberate and swear by its effectiveness.
Argues me inside - how can a conclusion which follows be logical, not, why a conclusion follows? If things get decided against or for anything, it doesn't necessarily have to mean and decide or settle debates once for all. After all this time, we are still debating the merits and demerits of capitalism vs socialism despite significant verdicts in favour of either already being pronounced. We can still see both sides being in practice in varying degrees of imperfections.
Generations of humans have lived out entire lives under one system, they might have passed away, totally convinced about its benefits. Or even totally proved wrong towards their end. Yet there seems to be no definite way against or for a generalised verdict. In defence of confusion, I say, there cannot be a logical order of things, people, places or philosophies.
And in this melee my being has been created. It will resist, desist and yet commit to many things, issues and principles with no exact, complete, desirable or undesirable consequences to me or others involved.
Generations of humans have lived out entire lives under one system, they might have passed away, totally convinced about its benefits. Or even totally proved wrong towards their end. Yet there seems to be no definite way against or for a generalised verdict. In defence of confusion, I say, there cannot be a logical order of things, people, places or philosophies.
And in this melee my being has been created. It will resist, desist and yet commit to many things, issues and principles with no exact, complete, desirable or undesirable consequences to me or others involved.
This is how conditioning of everything will always be, whether we believe it or not. Or maybe not?
Comments
Post a Comment