In Praise Of Folly

  ''[The] hip, cynical, transcendence of sentiment is ...some kind of fear of being really human.''
                                                                                                                               David Foster Wallace


''Am I crazy? Or am I  just so sane I blew your mind?'' 
                                                                                  Kramer, Seinfeld


Now, I am a huge fan of David Foster Wallace (DFW, as he is fondly called by his fans). Make no mistake about it.
During a particularly trying phase of my personal searching, This Is Water (2005)--a moving thesis on the enduring relevance of compassion, empathy and the power of cultivating human connection in the process of our most mundane and ordinary engagement with the world-- rescued me from the depths of cynical despair that had fogged my perception of the world and eroded my faith in humanity.

It had liberated me from the tyranny of my own ego to rediscover optimistic and empathetic connections with a seemingly self-serving and apathetic world.  It is a struggle we all must go through as sensitive individuals, every day, in every way, to avert the relentless assault of cynicism, through a conscious choice of compassion over callousness, through acts of small kindness and an unflagging  exercise of  charity which has nothing grandiose or dramatic about it.

It is a difficult and arduous choice indeed. To stare at the futility of existence and still to try to give it dignity and significance by ordinary, un-heroic altruism is by no means ordinary.It is no coincidence that the prophet of New Sincerity would envisage this deeply rewarding, but difficult, road to save the ego from its self-consuming excesses. It is especially relevant today, when human connections--in personal as well as political spaces--are getting destroyed fast and furiously by self-oriented thinking.

It is a pity that DFW's epiphanic wisdom could not save him from suicide three years later. Or, perhaps it was his gifted insight that precipitated this personal catastrophe?
He was so uniquely aware and alone in his wisdom, so filled with a love that no one could understand and receive, that his only way to appeal to his deaf audience was this big bang of self-annihilation. Like Cassandra, he was cursed by his gift: his prophecy was destined to be discredited. His consequent alienation was interpreted as insanity.

DFW's personal creative voice, and the school of New Sincerity in general,was an aesthetic/ philosophical reaction against the inescapable influence of Postmodern irony and its deconstructive humour that shaped American television and advertising during the 90s.
MTV, SNL, Seinfeld--the iconic cultural artefacts of the time are all unfailingly about this ironic alienation and deconstruction of grand narratives, the values and the sacred institutions of Western modernity, that gave meaning and stability to the worldview of the post-war global community up until then. David Foster Wallace felt, ''irony, cynicism, irreverence--the schticks of postmodernism are enervating the culture itself.''

If you are an auteur, you would know that irony is a notoriously difficult tone to create and sustain in a text. The sentimental trap lies in wait at every turn, in every corner. Sentiment is what guarantees an immediate and powerful connection with the audience: it hardly ever fails. A war photographer capturing a wounded and wailing child is sincere, sentimental. There is hardly anyone among his audience who will not instantly connect with its sentiment.
But this mode of creative expression operates on a level that is intellectually inert and stylistically lazy, albeit its being effective and inclusive. Its articulation is loud, obvious and unproblematic.

Now how about the same war-zone, where a faceless commoner is photographically captured in an unguarded moment, pissing on the monument of war heroes?
That is irony.
It is confrontational, subversive, irreverent; it raises quite a few hackles, on purpose; but executed honestly, it stays burnt in your memory as an unforgettable testament of war's laughable futility, cutting through the legitimising lies of nationalistic/ patriotic discourse.

It is not everyone's cup of tea. Not everyone is comfortable with its aggressive assault. And herein, burdened with this tough task, comes a person like Jerry Seinfeld: the Postmodern hero,a victim of unceasing confusion and indecision, who possesses nothing but his scurrilous postmodern irony to guide him through the baffling paradoxes of metropolitan modernity. In the process of his quest for personal fulfillment, he must dismantle the sacrosanct institutions of the modern west, complacent in the delusion of its own progress and power  --Love, Sex, Family, Parents, Kids, Friendship, Religion, Success,Money, Death, and finally, his own comedy itself, he has a bone to pick with every single notion that lulls us into unquestioning sentimentality.

In the postmodern world of fragmentation, in the middle of the disintegration of traditions and values, in the absence of a unifying narrative that would give universal meaning and legitimacy to the subjective experience of the atomised individual, this devil-may-care irreverence is invaluable: when the confused inhabitant of this experience gets tormented over these inescapable gaps and conflicts, Seinfeld seems to cock a snook at the sacred myths of modernity and asks, ''really? You took that so seriously?''

Too much sincerity or seriousness, too deep a commitment to empathy and connection can destroy you when the world around you does not care. DFW's sincerity destroyed him; it massively devastated his ideological peer Jonathan Franzen whose life-long battle with clinical depression was responsible for his personal neurosis and the sublime glimpses of a seething tragedy at the bedrock of  human existence, which he so compellingly portrays in his art.

 By  contrast, Jerry lives in a world that excludes the very possibility of tragedy and sublimity. The world that he and his most adorably confused and incompetent friends occupy is one that spins around the most trivial, inconsequential and meaningless problems-- some real but most of it imagined--that assume the proportions of earth-shattering crises for its benighted protagonists who believe in their own infallible omniscience in every field of experience, to be chastised everyday, by a ruthless reality. Tragedy is impossible under the circumstances, the most heartbreaking choices and predicaments of the postmodern hero can only give rise to buffoonery,or farce.

For instance, where is the scope for tragic elevation when one is emotionally crippled over the choice of underwear?
What wisdom can come off when one is crucified by one's conscience as his mother is hospitalised after having walked in on his solitary love?
What enlightenment can help somebody who loses his sleep over the correct direction of finger movement to ensure effective foreplay,  and in the heat of intimacy consults notes on the back of his hand, to this effect?
What is sublime about being devastated because a condescending waiter at an upscale restaurant denied you dinner reservation?
What redemption is expected to arrive when you are plunged into a profound existential anxiety as your favourite bakery runs out of the pastry of your choice?

None of it is elevating, or heroic, in the least; This is the sordid, the mundane, the petty, the embarrassing that are too small to be acknowledged, but too momentous, too unsettling to be accommodated by social discourse. These are the minuscule inconsistencies, the tragic ironies of everyday existence that we helplessly swallow because the cultural conventions have made them invisible. And yet, they are unavoidably enormous to whom they plague--that is you and me; the hotshot and the nobody.

Seinfeld's world is a place where traditions are dismantled, hierarchies inverted, and conventions interrogated to expose their empty core; the process then mocks us for the absurd and exaggerated seriousness we invested in them. Here, nuns abandon their cloister on the day they are to be ordained, drawn away by the 'animal magnetism' of a rather clumsy and off-kilter man with absurdly big hair and a pathetic dressing sense.
Sons prevent mothers from getting divorced, no, not because family is sacred but because he is horrified by the idea of inhabiting the same dating pool with her.
A perfect romance is ruined because the suitor is tempted to gobble up a half-eaten sandwich from the trashcan at the house of his fiancee's parents.
Here, human connections are unmade over parking spots and a budding union can fall apart, not because of hostile interference from society, but because polite compliments go wrong at the sight of a new-born infant's--no, not ethereal innocence--but aggressive ugliness: religion, family, romance, community, children, nothing is spared the ruthless ironic deconstruction, to finally reveal that no tragedy in life, if there is any, is worth more than a couple of laughs.

What all this irreverence does is that is blurs the lines between high and low, tragedy and farce, the sublime and the sordid, to point out that  there isn't really any distinction between one kind of heartbreak and another; it smashes such distinctions and hierarchies to establish the compassionate egalitarianism of the ironist: we are all together in this mess and confusion, you are not alone in your unspeakable embarrassment.

One of the standard objections raised by New Sincerity against this kind of deconstructive humour is that it is not philosophically redemptive, that it does not suggest any remedy or resolution to the contradictions it exposes, the hypocrisies it debunks. And, perhaps that is the whole point of it. It does not have a remedy:
''What kind of a sick society are we living in where nice [guy] is bad?'' cries out an anguished George Costanza, the perpetually confused intellectual in the group, defeated by his never ending self doubt.

 True, we no longer live in a medieval world of ''virtue rewarded'', where rewards and retributions are predictable and symmetrical to actions and choices. This is a baffling world where there is no justice. So why should there be an easy philosophical remedy to our complex and unique individual crises? Why should there be the comfort of a grand narrative when we know that they are redundant?

As life gets too hot to handle with its paralysing complexities and contradictions, as we try to live down the rejections, humiliations and indignities that are wired into the process of survival, as we lose sleep obsessively rationalising our own asymmetric responses to these insuperable dilemmas, when one choice is as bad and as disastrous as the other, suddenly Seinfeld's ironic voice sounds in our heads, ''Seriously, George? Oh please. Move on!''

Seinfeld refuses to concede seriousness to life when it does not deserve any, to rescue us from avoidable anxiety and self-pity and to make survival a little less unbearable in a world that is essentially indifferent to our suffering, and this is no ordinary wisdom.
This is wisdom of the highest order, the wisdom that makes us laugh at the hopeless world we are thrown into; to make us able to take as a joke the pathetic creatures we are forced to be.

Love Love Me

''Oh plunge your hands in water
Plunge them up to the wrist;
Stare, stare at the basin
And wonder what you have missed.''
...
''O look, look in the mirror,
O look in your distress:
Life remains a blessing 
Although you can not bless.''
                                                W. H Auden, 'As I Walked Out One Evening'


''Love being single as you can have fun with all different people and life is full of freedom and potential.''
...
''Whole London is full of couples holding hands...Am going to be alone for [the] rest of [my] life. Alone.'
              Bridget Jones:The Edge of Reason (pp 189-90)

The rains make me crave Romantic Comedy. It is the soul's junk food. It is like putting your brain on a diet of cheeseburst pizza with fries, along with full-fat cappuccino with a topping of Belgian chocolate. It makes your intellect fatty, lazy, slowing it down with flab of fantasies and impossibilities, which brilliantly seductive as they are, would never be allowed to happen by the reality principle itself.
But then the rains make me crave cheeseburst pizza as well.

I was reading Bridget Jones recently (the films being my perennial favourites during the valedictory and vulnerable week between Christmas and New Year ) and wondering about the precise nature of its enduring appeal to the generations of women between twenty and fifty five or thereabouts ( i.e mothers and daughters alike) that speaks to their existential dilemmas in the the most incisively comic, yet compassionate, manner.

Helen Fielding's was an honest, fresh, brilliant and genre-defining text that unfortunately started the end-of-the-millennium trend of 'chick-lit' (a disparaging publishing category) which eventually spread its contagion to other forms of the mass-media in the forms of romcom/ chick-flick and  telly sitcoms that centred on the ersatz female angst over not being able to find a partner well into her thirties while her biological clock ticks away. Think Rachel and Monica from Friends--smart, attractive women tortuously obsessing over the subtextual meanings of whatever happened or did not happen during their frightfully ambiguous dates, wondering whether this time they had indeed kissed the Prince Charming or it was yet another frog.

Friends: The Anxiety of New Age Courtship

These were essentially urban, post-feminist fairy tales which addressed a generation of emancipated and empowered women who believed that they had the power to write their own destiny, that their mothers, the pioneers of the Second Wave feminism and Sexual Revolution, had inculcated in them, which would finally usher in the economic independence of the women of the 80s and 90s.

Herein comes 'The Bridget Jones Paradox': on the one hand she is conditioned by the Western, Capitalistic rhetoric of individual reliance and self actualization, under the aegis of the democratic- Welfare state, on the other hand she is retarded in her progress by a more primordial and fundamental need-- which the Greeks called 'Eros--the life force, the organic, creative urge to be emotionally and sexually complemented by a sympathetic Other, who rounds out the jagged edges of our own fragmented and flawed egos. This second process requires a surrender of the independent and competitive ego to the demands of companionship and co-habitation. Caught in the crack between the two conflicting worlds, the modern woman must struggle a lot as she finds happiness in neither, and if she tries to bring the two together, they combust in her face in some sort of  inexplicably flammable reaction.

As to why this genre flourished in the 90s is easy to detect. It was due to a millennial anxiety over the future of marriage and family, as sacred, inviolate institutions,in the face of divorce, gay rights, live-in / casual sex, to say nothing of the involvement of technology in the forms of cyber hook- ups and dating apps. Thankfully Tinder, with its horror stories, was still beyond the stuff of wildest nightmares of Bridget and her romantically maladjusted tribe of friends.

Stragglers like Bridget--the dreamers, the idealists, the urban Cinderellas--must fall behind in the race, as it is all about sexual marketability and manicured perfection in the brutal, fast-paced, opportunistic, and unforgiving universe of new age dating ; anything less than that, one is out.

Bridget, the hot mess with her ill-timed humour, goofy sincerity, her cellulite-ridden thighs and golden innocence is a recipe for disaster. But she is also Everywoman, all and each one of us with her inept, pissed, humiliated 'loser'- girl persona; with all her pratfalls, blunders and imperfections, waiting to be accepted, loved, invited into the arms of the man who will see through all that and just understand.
This gendered fantasy gives rise to an urban community--a sorority of acutely confused women--offering each other disastrous dating advice, solely on the basis of second-hand theoretical knowledge derived from unrealistic dating manuals, and outright harmful coaching from dating Gurus. It is all because they are scared to engage with a man's raw, unedited emotions that can destroy their carefully constructed self perception.

Helen fielding creates a delightful comedy of manners, set in cyber age London, to expose the confusion, vanity, nastiness and bad faith that surround the war of sexes in the contemporary world of seduction and courtship.
One of the laughable moments of  such false enlightenment and confused clarity goes: ''The more a man likes a woman the more he will avoid getting involved.'', declares one of Bridget's best friends, to help her get over an especially painful and humiliating break-up. ''So chucking me could be a sign that he is really serious about the relationship?'' surmises a distraught and miserably muddled Bridget. It is also a stab at the now infamous Mars-Venus theory laid out by John Gray that became the dating Bible of an entire generation.

What all this theoretical confusion did, in effect,was poison the ground of honest and spontaneous engagement on a basic, human level between the sexes, creating cut-throat suspicion, distrust and hostility on both sides of the gender-divide. Women, dying to secure their lovers' respectful affection, were, and may be, still are reeling under indifference, infidelity, flakiness and downright lies from them; they are feigning cool detachment whilst bleeding and feeling suicidal inside.

This expectation is not simple, neither is it easy to fulfill. There is no authoritative guide to help one navigate through the tricky waters of another persons true emotions which he is trying his best to hide. As it turns out, men on the other end, on whom the onus of this expectation lies, who are supposed to just miraculously understand us simply by looking, are equally awkward, afraid of rejection, emotionally inept and clueless about what women want. Like Mark Darcy, Bridget's dream suitor, they try to look distant and angry when they are devastated and sad, giving women a totally wrong message about their emotional reality.

We, who are addicted to Friends,  Sienfeld,  Will and Grace, or How I Met Your Mother, i.e classic television sitcom, know how men let themselves be pointlessly torn between the 'Bro' obligation to act 'cool' so as to maintain sexual tension, and a more human and primal need to be emotionally and sexually rewarded by a woman worthy of attention.

As cynical adults we all have baggage. Love has burned us before, and we have been Love's fool, against our best judgement, over and over again. So we do not trust our gut anymore. Even the 'diary' that should ideally record our deepest and most honest emotions (the English Puritan tradition especially encouraged journal keeping as a form of spiritual exercise, hence the first novel in English language was a fictional diary indeed, that of Robinson Crusoe) is no more a trustworthy record of our innermost reality, as the content comes filtered through the individual's bad conscience, corrupted  both by complex modernity and the gradual process of  maturation in such an atmosphere heavy in cynicism.

In other words there is no end to our lying to ourselves. And these lies are ultimately self-wounding. ''It is awful being single'', bursts out Bridget's feminist friend Shazzer, ''no one to put their arm around at the end of the day...Alone. Completely alone.''
So here we come. Cynical adults in love. Chronic (self) deception our forte. Unlike innocent teenagers, unashamed of their emotions,their romantic fragility, the prelapsarian Romeos and Juliets, confessing their love for each other in cheesy but honest platitudes, we, the older folk, are cautious, guarded, repressed and most fatally inhibited. We are protecting ourselves from the hurt and betrayals by our constant defensive lies in order to barricade our emotional core, our scared and fragile egos, against the assault of disillusionment. We have walked through numerous break-ups/ divorces,and acts of disloyalty, to learn that love is a mug's game.

So is there no way forward from this insuperable deadlock? This dilemma that eludes answers? Must we accept the cynical reality of the unattainability of love and simply grow up into embittered old men and women with nothing but a misanthropic worldview to see us through the slow and painful years of dotage--emotionally bankrupt, spiritually destitute?

It seems that there is. But it is an arduous road to take which is not for the faint-hearted.
 It is through the painstaking stripping away of the defenses and lies, the prejudices and false selves, of the paralysing fears and doubts discrediting our most authentic and legitimate desires, that the road to salvation lies. To be finally able to stand naked before the Other who has such unlimited power over us that they can annihilate us with their rejection. The secret is to be able to embrace our vulnerability.
It is not without coincidence that all major Romantic Comedies deploy this symbolic moment of  emotional nakedness through the metaphor of  literal and visual denudation,a sequence of physical exposure, a literal glimpse of the protagonist's raw skin:
In The Proposal, Ryan Reynolds must see Sandra Bullock (his tyrannical boss) emerge naked from the bathroom before he can break through her tough exterior of professional ambition and emotional resistance, and engage with her on a romantic/sexual level;
A nearly naked Bridget (Renee Zellweger) hobbles through a particularly bad London snow, in flimsy lingerie, chasing a wounded  Colin Firth walking away from her life, attracting disapproving stare from elderly pedestrians, before she can confess her vulnerability for him and be invited into his open arms offering warmth, refuge and covering her dimpled thighs, her thirties' girth and her shame. It is a typically kitschy and effective moment in conjunction with an earlier scene when he lists the things he hates about her and tops it with a stilted and awkward confession, ''I like you as you are''.

This is it. The salvation.
The key to every woman's ( and I suspect every man's too) deepest erotic fantasy.
Every adult's emotional G spot. To find acceptance with our skinny arms or saggy breasts, our fat bellies and gray hair. Our lies, our secrets. Our scandals and crimes.
Our mistakes,our imperfections.
Our shame,our failures, without any extenuating explanation.
Our naked, naked rawness, where we bleed and know you hurt too, because of the hurt we have caused each other.
To be loved liked that. In spite of that. Because of that.
Love in  this profound sense, is forgiveness.

Just as a fully dressed Mark Darcy covers a naked Bridget in his arms, her naked surrender, with the ends of his coat, love is that compassion too.
And love is that moment of nakedness. It is the most awkward and risky act of self-exposure, which does not come without inspired grace. This decision to finally take off the protective layering of lies, defenses and denials.
Now what if the person standing across you stabs you at your most vulnerable moment?
They can. And they do.
It is quite common in life. But the fun of inhabiting a text, is that unlike in real life, there is a teleological structure in a text ,ensuring a happy closure as a generic imperative with Romantic Comedy.
We love Bridget because she has the emotional courage to do what we can not.
To risk self exposure in the face of infinite odds.We know that the author is on her side. In life we do not have that faith in either karma or fate.
So we let life pass us by.
 Before Sunrise, A delicate, meditative poem on celluloid, uses a few stanzas of Auden's text I have quoted in the beginning, as a philosophical commentary on our hopeless reality :
''In headaches and in worry
Vaguely life leaks away,
And Time will have its fancy
Tomorrow or today''.

We are scared but Bridget isn't. That's how fairy tales end; And fairy tales are precious because they give us what life denies--the miracles, the redemption, that are tucked beneath the wrong choices and the bad timings that life is made of.

Quite a Love Story

''Given the nature of the human couple, the love of man and woman ...is inferior to that which can exist between man and dog. ...the question that plagues human couples: Does he love me? Does he love anyone more than me? Does he love me more than I love him? Perhaps all the questions we ask of love, to measure, test, probe and save it, have the additional effect of cutting it short... The love between dog and man is idyllic. It knows no conflicts, no... scenes.''
                    Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being.                                                                   

Given that it is Valentine's season and The Oscar fever is underway, I thought that I would write about my personal response to Phantom Thread (one of the strongest entries for this year's Academy Awards) since it is being marketed as an unusual love story-- not the usual kitschy stuff that gets you teared up, but a dark, subversive, almost cynical stab into the heart of romantic desire-- which it is. Whether you have stomach for that kind of dark and morbid romance, is a different issue altogether.

Set in the self-involved coutoure  world of Post-war London, the plot revolves around the  celebrity fashion designer Reynolds Woodcock (Daniel Day Lewis) and his muse/ model/ servant-girl Alma (Vicky Krieps).
 Woodcock is a middle-aged, ruthless and neurotically narcissistic artist who utilises  his lovers/ muses and chucks them off like used tissues when their function is past the emotional expiration date. His assistant/ soulmate/ business partner, his sister Cyril (Leslie Manville) is the one who does all the dirty job of disposal of the girls-on -their-way-out for him. Together, they form an intense, and almost incestuous dyad that is seemingly indestructible. Women just pass through, as temporary objects of  Woodcock's lust, without in any way threatening their self-contained world that is rigidly predictable and sterile.
How Alma, the shy and submissive country waitress, the most unusual suspect, disrupts this bond and breaks through Woodcock's resistance against romantic intimacy is a startling revelation.

 While discussing this film, critics are generally eloquent about the Pygmalion- like function of the artist and his active masculine gaze in relation with his passive, feminine muse as a playground for his fantasies of creative omnipotence. It forms a large part of the complexity, true, but is only a part of it.
''You have no breasts'', he declares bluntly while measuring Alma, who cringes at its mention in front of a coolly spiteful Cyril, ''but I could give you some, if I choose to'' he surmises with cold arrogance.

Reynolds Woodcock is a consummate artist indeed; and like all artists, is a nightmare to be around. Moody, difficult, self-obsessed and avoidant, he is also an expert seducer of women and, yes, a speed freak at the steering wheel of his suave sedan.  He is vain, self conscious and a snob: 'chic' is a word he despises; the person who coined it, he feels, should be taken out for 'public spanking'.

He is aggressive, dominant and Godlike with his female clients, the society ladies who surrender to his mastery and charisma like limp-legged Eves: exposed, passive and totally under his command; they are anxious to impress him because he repairs the flaws that God left behind. He is a man who makes women--young, old, ugly-- look beautiful. The fitting sessions are especially long, ritualistic and fraught with sexual tension: as a man taking charge of the female body, touching them in their most intimate parts with a cool professional disengagement, he looks divinely powerful and it makes the frisson all the more palpable.

Alma, by contrast, is feminine, demure and her supreme virtue is that she can endlessly 'stand' while he sits, day-in, day-out, inspecting her critically, with equal measures of admiration and dismissal. The power equation is evident by the number of occasions he is seen seated and she standing in front of him--open, undressed, spectated.
                                           

 The way he keeps dressing and undressing her is also responsible for making her look infantilized: and indeed, he is a much older, parental, cynical and dominant lover, hovering on the brink of dotage. But there is one crucial problem: he has an unresolved Oedipal issue; he has an obsessive 'mother complex'. His dead mother, who keeps haunting his dreams, is the third angle of all his love affairs that inhibits their romantic fruition. The sister is only an extension of that maternal incest-fantasy.

Food, a typically maternal object that involves nourishment and pleasure, becomes a metaphor for adult sexuality, its acceptance and rejection an oral signal of love and/or the lack of it. This is the chink in the armour of  Woodcock's cynical emotional resistance: and Alma knows it.

After a virulent episode of food poisoning  (out of spurned and frustrated love, a vindictive Alma feeds Woodcock poison mushrooms) through which she nurses him back to health, like a mother looking after an ailing child, and during which he hallucinates the dead mother and refuses professional medical intervention quite stubbornly and without explanation,  he proposes marriage to her. We are confused ; we can't quite figure out what happened to cause such a romantic epiphany.

At the heart of their dark and disintegrating marriage, lies the most subversive discourse on desire that I have ever seen in mainstream Hollywood cinema. While Alma pitches her passive aggressive resistance to counter his indifferent superiority--she eats grossly, makes maximum noise at the breakfast table, flirts with other men; in short does everything to put him off that she knows would unfailingly do so--we stay pretty much unsurprised. This is what was expected of such an unequal marriage after all. The girl was practically his servant, standing in line in her calico uniform, with his seamstresses most of the time. They are both consumed by unhappiness, locked in a stalemate of hatred and hostility.

 As their marriage continues to deteriorate inexorably, heading towards its inevitable collapse, Alma plucks poison mushrooms from the backyard again and cooks a seemingly sumptuous hell's broth with steely equanimity. We are to helplessly watch the poor old husband eat the toxic food--or is it toxic love of the vampish wife?--when he sensually swallows the food, giving her a knowing, complicit smile and says, with infinite passion, ''now kiss me my girl before I'm sick''. An astoundingly unruffled and  smiling Alma declares, ''I want you on your back... tender, helpless, open.'' And this, for me is a rare moment of triumph: content-wise and stylistically.

He knew.
He knew all along. And chose to play into her hands, participating in this near-fatal role-play; putting his own life on the line. He too, with Alma, was pushing the limits of their morbid love. But why?
He is a person whose existence is entrenched in habit, so much so, that a surprise romantic dinner oppresses him like an 'ambush', for which he crucifies Alma and expresses his intention to break up with her. So why does he, so uncharacteristically, indulge in such a wild and dangerous erotic game?


 He does, because with each episode of sickness, he  experiences a temporary regression into infantile passivity, surrendering to the maternal love and care of Alma. Alma becomes the absent mother during that brief interval, giving his lifelong Oedipal crisis a logical resolution. The absent object of desire is momentarily reclaimed that fills the hole of Woodcock's longing and makes him whole again, albeit for a while.

Like a BDSM role reversal, Alma, the timid and shy muse assumes unlimited power and control over the dominant male artist with a narcissistic ego, who is only happy and relieved to let go,even though for a moment, in the sinister privacy of their shared fantasy, their morbid sado-masochistic dependency.
It is in this radical moment of erotic role reversal that they rewrite the aesthetic paradigm of the male artist and the female muse. It is not accidental that she is called 'Alma', the immediate association being 'mater', together, literally meaning, the 'kind/nourishing mother'

As Woodcock lies foetally curled on her lap, abjectly at her mercy, a glowing and dreamy Alma confesses to the doctor that she would feel happy to meet him in the blessed afterlife, in case he were to die during one of these scenarios. She is proud to proclaim that she would continue to love him through all the possible afterlives to come.
Delusional? Demented? Criminal? Or is it superhuman romantic idealism?

That seduction and sexual love is propelled by a dark dynamic of power and control and a compelling need to appropriate and possess the romantic other, is no news to the readers of Alexander Sacher Masoch. Even discourses within popular culture ratify this unflattering psychosexual reality-- such as through songs, Harlequin romances,and blockbusting movie plots. It is mainly a cynical acknowledgement of the fallen nature of human sexuality.

What Phantom Thread does is that it opens a space for romantic idealism, of sublime beauty within the larger and mostly cynical context of  morbid co-dependency. It demands us to be non-judgemental while we look at the unconventional and rather pathological attachment of Woodcock and Alma with horrified fascination. We realize that the best love-stories are the ones in which the contours of each others' fantasies fit perfectly.
Did I say 'fit'?
That is perhaps the reason why the most furiously incompatible types often make the most bafflingly successful couples. Outer success has nothing to do with the repulsive beauty of this rich tapestry of erotic diversity, the phantom thread that weaves it is Desire.

The Radiant Depth Unfolded: Rumi

  ''My story gets told in various ways: a romance, a dirty joke, a war, a vacancy''.

''The minute i heard my first love story, i started looking for you...lovers don't finally meet somewhere. They are in each other all along.''  Jalaluddin Rumi                                                                                                       

   My blog is named after one of Rumi's mystical ideas, Sudden Wholeness: it denotes a state of being, a phase of awareness in which the seeker/ lover glimpses an unexpected organization and purpose underlying the chaos of external phenomena; it is the discovery of a silent harmony in the cacophony of experience. I was fascinated by the idea. I decided whenever I write something original, I would use this idea in one way or another.

  Like most  non-Muslim readers of Rumi, my entry-point to Rumi was Coleman Barks' exquisite translations. Like the lay audience, the uninitiated, I too was drawn to Rumi through Sufi humanism and its exalted ideals of tolerance, peace and universal love. Like most of Bark's Western audience, I too discovered Rumi at a turbulent time of my life, trying to look for ways to silence my inner turmoil.

   Due to its effortless conflation of the erotic and the ascetic, its seamless blending of the carnal and the divine, its welding of the flesh and the spirit, on the discursive level, Sufi arcana and Rumi are an endless resource to popular culture. From Bollywood cinema to Hindi rock music, there is no end to Rumi's influence.
It is this half-cooked, pedestrian understanding and  appropriation of a discipline that is arcane and highly structured-- practised within a hierarchic teacher- student tradition-- that has been responsible for its cultural abuse. A serious philosophical order, today, is flippantly associated with mutinous boy-meets-girl romance in Bollywood cinema that sets its bar far lower than the enlightened climax that Shams and Rumi aspired for.

Subcontinental  Islamic scholars, such as Sadia Dehlvi, feel deeply offended by such vulgarization of Sufism. She sees it as a problem, the way Sufism stands expunged of its theological element and is divested of its academic gravitas. She holds the reductionist Western approach to Rumi responsible for inhibiting a deep dialogue between mainstream Islam and the non Islamic audience of Sufi.

And perhaps that is the whole point of the West's enduring fascination with a religious mystic poet from Medieval Persia: he needs no Quoranic annotations, no academic rigour to be explained. Whoever has loved and lost anywhere in the world will understand Rumi. In a world where institutional religions are losing relevance more than ever, Rumi's lyrical philosophy addresses the modern condition more effectively without getting involved in the scholastic debates.

  To me, Rumi, the poet, is what justifies his continued relevance in today's world than Rumi, the commentator on sacred texts. 'Sohbet', the central idea of Rumi's mystic practice, his metaphysical dialogues with Shams, is an inexhaustibly mysterious form of philosophical discourse that blurs the contours of the identities of the participants.The ' You' and 'I' are the lover and the beloved, the master and the student, God and the seeker,  the persona and the anima of the same person, sometimes it is the inner self schizophrenically split against itself, into the sentient and spiritual halves:
     
You said, ''Who's at the door?
I said, ''Your slave''

You said,'' what do you want?''
I  said, ''to see you and bow''

''How long will you wait?''
''Until you call''...

''What do you want from me?''
''Grace''

''Where can you live safely?''
''In surrender''

''What is this giving up?''
''A peace that saves us''

''How do you walk there?''
''In perfection''.

The beauty of this ontological exploration is the radical interchangeability of the self and the other.''We are the mirror as well as the face in it. ...We are pain and what cures the pain, both''. It is difficult to determine who the lover is and who the beloved, between Rumi and Shams of Tabriz; it is not easy to know the precise nature of their engagement either, Shams is somewhere between an inspiring friend and a wise master who actively seeks out his true disciple. Together they create a philosophy based on profound interpersonal sharing, that attempts to answer one of the deepest anxieties of life: how to come to terms with loss?

  Obviously, their unconventional intimacy did not go down well with the religious establishment of the land. Rumi's professional commitment as a teacher of the holy texts was being adversely affected too. Like a responsible lover, Shams leaves Rumi for Damascus, plunging him headfirst into the bottomless pit of despair. This is the traumatic turning point that transforms Rumi from an ordinary religious scholar to a sublime interpreter of the mysteries of existence. His master/ lover Shams did not discourage Rumi's knowledge of Islam's theology and scholastic arguments but inspired him to travel beyond them. Faced with the howling absence of the person who gave his life its purpose, Rumi is forced to confront the dark core of separation, and discover healing in creative art:

'' We know separation so well because we have tasted the union...the pushing away pulls you in.''

 They unite one more time after this, when Shams returns from his self-imposed exile in Damascus, and they greet each other by falling at each others' feet, blurring the status of each one within the romantic as well as the hierarchical / master-student relationship.

picture courtesy: https://onbeing.org/programs/fatemeh-keshavarz-the-ecstatic-faith-of-rumi/

After Shams is brutally murdered by Rumi's family in 1248, Rumi's wanderings begin, in Damascus, his personal pilgrimage steeped in the association of Shams, with an unquiet, gutted soul that denies him oblivion and closure. His lacerated lyrics hang like a jewel in the ghastly night of endless absence of his companion, as the separation this time,is veritably, final.
His tortured quest for the meanings of life, love, and death; his self-wounding pursuit of the purpose of existence; his impossible quest for a lover on the other side of inexorable physical annihilation ultimately precipitate a spiritual breakthrough where he realizes :

''Why should I seek? I am the same as He. His essence speaks through me.
I have been looking for myself''.
This is an instance of consummate union, a total surrender of the self to the beloved other, the complete annihilation through which the self is renewed. Fana--or the death of the self in love. This may remind us of a return to the state of Platonic wholeness and plenitude, before the cracks of living separate the soul from its original companion.

This is also a state of blessed blankness, a nonbeing, a void paradoxically loaded with spiritual wealth:
''I used to be respectable and chaste and stable, ... I saw you and became empty.... 
To praise is to praise how one surrenders to this emptiness.''

What we can see here is an extraordinarily effective management of separation anxiety as well as of a traumatised ego; by integrating the object of affection into the self, Rumi's therapeutic philosophy gives way to a stronger and more stable ego that is dialectically evolved. The fusion of the ego with the object of its desire--without denying its legitimate role in the transaction-- seems to be an extremely successful strategy to counter the debilitating effects of separation from its object, through death, distance or the unfortunate demise of affection. The fracture that opens up due to the frustration of desire, and which is at the root of almost every form of neurosis and anxiety, is assuaged by this  mechanism that helps us accept the randomness of experience,without resentment.

Rumi's poetry is pervaded by an obsessive recurrence of images: the intense longing for an absent lover, glimpses of the distant face, torrid fantasies of union, and visions of an ecstatic surrender. While it is not impossible to discover resonances of the ancient Middle Eastern tradition of erotic poetry, such as The Songs of Solomon ( no artist can create in a vacuum of influence) what stands out in Rumi's art  is a harmonious resolution of the oppositional tension that is at the heart of every act of intercourse: sexual, romantic and spiritual; with a human lover, and/or  a divine other. The other, that by definition, resides outside the frontiers of the self, is made to invade the barriers of  the self until it is incorporated in it and dissolves completely in the self in an ecstatic (ex+ stasis= lit. outside existence) union whereby the individual identity of each is erased.

''...dissolve me if this is the time. Do it gently, with a touch of hand, or a look. 
...Or do it suddenly like an execution.
You keep me away with your arm but the keeping away is pulling me in.''

It is easy to understand the seduction of  such an orgasmic healing, such a calming, restorative philosophy in today's world, when the political climate is divisive due to toxic egos, when there is increasing personal alienation between individuals, when relationships are fragile and more than ever divested of emotional seriousness, and when break-ups, deaths and separations hurt exactly as badly as they did in Rumi's time.

This is coping mechanism adorned with the finest aesthetic beauty, it is the anxious and terrified soul's fortification against the ravages of Time and mutability, in the wisdom rising out of an empirical appreciation of  tragedy. It is enduringly relevant because it answers a modern, complex and deeply existential quest. It is the miracle of salvaging the self through the erasure of the ego; we don't have to look for this miracle outside ourselves. The love we search for, has been there in us all along.

She asks ''do you love me, or yourself more? Really, tell me the absolute truth.''
He says, ''there's nothing left of me. I'm like a ruby held up to the sun. It is a stone but has no resistance to the sun's light.''*

When we render ourselves open to the Light we make ourselves more precious, more dazzlingly beautiful.

*All translations, of Rumi's texts, are by Coleman Barks.

He Was Not But One Hour Mine

''I grow old...I grow old...
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.
Shall I part my hair behind?
...and walk upon the beach?
I have seen the mermaids singing each to each.
I do not think that they will sing to me.''
                                     T.S Eliot, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock


  One of the defining traits of middle age is an acute and inescapable awareness of loss that seems to be wired into experience. Its autumnal tone is unexcitable and calm: it has lost the violent optimism of youth and is at peace with its fatalistic acceptance that life would not give another chance.Every evening is a dire reminder of another petal fallen off the dazzling, but wilting, flower of youth. Every morning, a tortured search in front of the mirror for another new grey, another line added to the deepening crow's feet. Every sudden phone call, the news of another ageing, ailing relative passing away, someone we should have visited long ago but couldn't quite manage.

  The beauty of youth is in its wasteful abundance: we make mistakes, lose jobs, break off with lovers, neglect friendships, forget birthdays when we are young. We know we are never far away from a second chance,life bursts with such a pressing immediacy, such an overwhelming vehemence that everything else must wait till we sort out life. Middle age is the dawning awareness that we have exhausted our reserve of second chances. Life, from this point on, is a series of finalities.

  Mid-life crisis is consciousness' meltdown in the face of such a traumatic, inexorable given: youth, with all its abundance and intoxication seems like a betrayal from this lonely apex. Depression and suicide are at one end of the spectrum of reaction to this unmitigated eventuality,while chronic cynicism, overspending, and one night stands lie at the other, less extreme end. They are the soul's insane, and essentially futile, attempts to reassert control over something that is outside the ambit of human power.

And yet, there is another, more meaningful, more beneficial way of doing the same thing.Most triumphant art is born in this place of infernal darkness: they are aesthetically organised responses to  the writer/ artist's terrified recognition of this truth. Rabindranath Tagore's frenzied translation of the 'Gitanjali' poems (resulting in his winning the Nobel Prize for literature, 1913) was a middle-aged man's answer to the gaping, numbing futility at the core of life, often driving him suicidal by his own admission, in one of his letters to his oldest son.  Having lost his five children and wife to death, in a quick succession, this is how the mystic from the East reacts:

'' I must launch out my boat--I must. The languid hours pass by on the shore.... .
Dost thou not feel the thrills passing through the air with the notes of  the faraway song... from the other shore?'' Gitanjali, 42.

Mellowed by this profound knowledge of letting go, middle-aged love is less arrogant,more abject and more philosophical. Unlike in the first flush of youth when love is at the very first sight and its demise is at the very first slight, love, if it at all happens at this age, is rather with a philosophical construct, than with a person. That's why it is so difficult to let go of someone at this age, especially when you know that it is this one person who stands between you and the barren shore of dotage and death. The one writer in English language who celebrates this brand of love with enduring success is William Shakespeare.

Shakespeare's sonnets are a fraught monologue of the modern soul confronting death without the consolation of Medieval Christianity, trying to find  immortality in romantic love instead.

  In 1596, Shakespeare was 32 (the quite appropriate age to experience the onset of midlife crisis in the sixteenth century) when he lost his 11 year old son, a memento mori that was to exert a powerful influence on his creative life. His sonnets, written over the span of the next 8 years, is a theatre of love, loss, youth and its passing in the face of the ominous antagonist, Death. The stage is the bereaved soul of the poet, where he obsessively keeps re-enacting these themes, these anxieties with the help of his two other dramatis personae--his boy -muse,the Young Man(YM) and his Dark Lady (DL). The essence of this abject, slavish, cringing and often most self-abasing love is quite heartbreakingly contained in his critically celebrated Sonnet 64:

    ''Ruin has taught me thus to ruminate/  That Time will come and take my love away.
      This thought is as death which can not choose/ But weep to have that which it fears to lose.''

This sad and terrifying picture of mutability is inspired in a man in his thirties by a seventeen year old kid.In keeping with his youthful good looks, this boy-lover is most notoriously disloyal, the poems are permeated by a profoundly mature awareness of his profligacy. And yet what exactly is it that keeps the celebrity playwright of the Elizabethan popular theatre latched on to the callous and ruthless boy so poignantly, with such inextinguishable affection and forgiveness?
The break-up sonnets (ie when the boy has absolutely had it and is breaking off) 87-90, almost viscerally ooze with tears and blood. One can not but think, what is it, really, that inspires such fierce, suicidal loyalty, especially when one knows one's lover is false?

     ''When thou shalt be disposed to set me light/ And place me in the eye of scorn,
      Upon thy side, against myself, I'll fight/  And prove thee virtuous, though thou art forsworn'' (88)

One of the provocative theories, suggested by Michael Wood, is that Shakespeare's most severe separation anxiety, in response to the possibility of his parting with the Young Man has its roots in his parental grief: the boy-lover is a transmutation of the dead son, adolescent and now, lost.''For his love is absolute, intense, overwhelming in the way that a parent feels for a child'' (Michael Wood). That makes Shakespeare's romantic intensity and sexual jealousy infinitely more challenging to read, taking us almost, to the edge of political incorrectness but read in this light of fatherly grief, his romantic loss assumes a devastatingly tragic tone, so unspeakable that is defies the limits of ordinary articulation:
            ''Thus have I had thee as a dream doth flatter: / In sleep a king; but waking no such matter.'' (87).
A more modern and readily relateable example would be Eric Clapton's 'Tears in Heaven':

''Would you hold my hand
   If I saw you in heaven?
  Would you help me stand
   If I saw you in heaven?
...Beyond the door there's peace I'm sure
    And I know there'll be no more tears in heaven.''

Without knowing the backstory of Clapton's son's death inspiring such a beautiful lyric of loss, one would underestimate the depth of grief packed into the poetry. As romantic lyric-- which it is entirely possible to be interpreted-- it is quite ordinary, indeed, bordering on the sentimental, but as a grieving father's vision of a dead child it is exquisitely, and most achingly sublime. And this is also a grown man's psychological response to loss that is irreparable.

An ordinary, lesser person would retreat into psychotic disintegration under similar circumstances, pretty much like the Mother in Laars Von Trier's Antichrist, whose infant falls to death from an upstairs window while she is engaged in sex in the shower. Chances are, that the parents' sanity would get eroded by survivor's guilt, as it surely must have been in Clapton's case as well, but the gifted artist that he is, he turns this moment of severe emotional rupture around, into an occasion of aesthetic inspiration with the help of the oldest psychological defense, deployed by creative individuals everywhere: sublimation.

After a certain age, every act of artistic creation is essentially an act of exorcism: a solitary, anguished effort to drive away the demons of loss, mortality and irreconcilable separations that torment every thinking individual who knows that he is growing old; every line written on the page, every stroke of the brush on the canvas, every note composed on the instrument is the howl of the ageing soul being slowly dragged away to the dreadful destination.

Art, in this situation, becomes a means as well as an end in itself; the repeated assaults of death, loss and separation have taught us that there is no eternal, permanent core that guarantees stability against the systemic unpredictability and mutability of adult life. Michael,the classical violinist who is Vikram Seth's protagonist from his excruciatingly cathartic novel, An Equal Music, contemplates the nature of his coping with the loss of the woman he lost and found and lost again in his middle age, in clearly aesthetic terms. This is what he concludes during the final concert in which his beloved performs with the divine perfection of a deaf Beethoven:
''Music, such music is a sufficient gift. Why ask for happiness; why hope not to grieve? It is enough , it is to be blessed enough to live from day to day and to hear such music...''. Art, then, gives the order and symmetry, the beauty and permanence that the chaos of living denies. Art stays, while life slips through the clenched fingers desperately trying to hold on to old certainties.

Writers, artists, musicians descend into the darkest well of loss, the inferno of distance and death, and find reprieve, if not redemption, to make our own loss of youth and beauty, our own progress to extinction a little less alone, a little more bearable--so that, their art offers a purpose, a meaning to the senseless entropy at the heart of creation, and therein, art writes a divine comedy on the pages of the grim tragedy that  existence is. They encourage us to celebrate the brief hour of love, of life,through their art and experience, that wrests immortality out of  our all too human transience.
   

There Is No Spoon

' Spoon boy: Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. ...try to realize the truth.
         Neo: What truth?
  Spoon boy:There's no spoon.'
                                       Matrix, 1999.

In 1981 Jean Baudrillard, the French philosopher of the Post-modern experience, introduced his revolutionary thesis of 'Simulacra and Simulation' to an awestruck community of  academics who were still coming to terms with the emergence of an aesthetic and a way of life that was fragmentary, synthetic, subjective and vulnerable to skeptical deconstruction, revealing at its centre a hole, a lack of objective truth that had sanctified knowledge since the great revolution of ideas, known as the Enlightenment.
 He proposed an epistemological model to explain the relation between symbols and society and the limits imposed on the human mind's ability to access 'truth', by the historical evolution of that critical relationship. He also shows us, in the process, how the Enlightenment  paradigm,

                                   God= Light= Reason/ Truth } Logos


is radically and irreversibly altered. Baudrillard characterizes experience in the mediatized, virtualized, post-capitalistic reality as governed by an infinite sequence of images that endlessly refer back to each other for meaning, with no objective truth to reveal at the end of the process.

  In 1999, the fiendishly creative Wachowskis introduced a popular-cinematic spin to this hardcore academic idea, and got it cross-fertilized with the emerging discourses of software programming and A.I. The resulting text is a hybrid of science fiction and cultural critique-- the cult cyberpunk classic,  Matrix.
  The whole idea of inhabiting a simulated reality where consciousness is controlled by the 'hyperreal', may have been pretty darkly futuristic, the stuff of millennial dystopia in 1999,  but in less than twenty years of its release, it isn't anymore. As the debate rages over the ethicality of autonomous weapons in warfare,  the future looks increasingly inclement  where full robotization of military conflicts can be a lot sooner than we may expect. Mark  Zuckerberg, the poster-boy of prodigiac innovation, is a well-known critic of this kind of dehumanization of  the scientific imagination.

We live, pretty much like in Baudrillard's Third, or even Fourth Order Simulation where reality is constructed by signs and images for us, but these signs represent no original truth. ''The simulacrum (copy) is never that which conceals the truth-- it is the truth which conceals that there is none. [Only] the simulacrum is true.'' The images, the discourses, the meanings that compete for legitimacy all day, non stop, on television, internet, social media, in print, advertising, and cinema construct realities that are so shifting, so provisional, so ideologically motivated, and ultimately so self-reflexive that they have to deliberately blur the contours of a truth that exceeds, and exists outside, their purpose and existence. Like the hyperreal currency 'Bitcoin', these images create values for us that are finally, empty; non- existent.

'Post-truth'  and 'Alternative Facts' are the new symbolic tools by which power is asserted and maintained. But it is a world of signifiers without a referent. A stream of representation without the 'real' that validates the enterprise. Let's say, we see a city in Iraq or Ukraine being bombed, on the internet or on television; we know that pictures don't lie, right? So we are lulled into a ready and unquestioning credulity, without asking who shows us the images. Does it matter? We know that pictures don't lie.So if the pictures are true, the accompanying commentary, or information must be authentic too. At least, the presumption seems to be that there is an effort to unearth the 'truth' behind the incident. But depending on who controls representation, the interpretation of the image assumes a 180 degree flexibility; there is no objective, universal ideal of truth anymore--existing outside the symbols of power-- that says: 'killing humans for ideology  isn't ethically feasible, and that whatever happens, human life is inviolable.'

Till the end of World War II there was no such skepticism or relativist confusion surrounding the accountability and morality of war. If the bombing of Pearl Harbor was unethical, so was Hiroshima, and there was a fairly unambiguous boundary of responsibility. No one in their right mind would even suggest, ''well, you know, with a little bit of tweaking of the image and the information you disseminate, and if you do influence the opinion of a fairly large number of people, you can actually make the world believe that Hiroshima did not happen! Or even if it did, let's say it's India that did it.' Today, after the death of truth, this is exactly what is possible and is done.
During the First Gulf War of 1989, we, for the first time, felt the power of images to shape the outcome of a military conflict. It was the first major technologically enabled war,engaging a western superpower after the World War II, that was televised for the world to view as a spectacle. Whoever had the power over representation and semiotics of war, we knew, would win it. We knew that the U.S would finally have the edge since the American images of precision bombing of the Iraqi territory were breathtakingly efficient.
Ironically, within the space of  a decade, the enemy hijacked this weapon and started disseminating propaganda images across the virtual world setting the Western notion of liberal democracy--an enduring legacy of the French Revolution and Enlightenment--on fire. It harvested its recruits from among the unemployed/ socially alienated white/ coloured youth in ways that was beyond the inkling of the most sophisticated surveillance machinery.
The result was 9/11. Again, an image indelibly burned in the memory of a global population. And this too created a semiotic mythology of its own, becoming a potent visual ammunition for both  the liberal West and radical Islam. The melting, falling Twin Towers, going up in flames that were infernal... whose image is it? What does is mean?
The wrath of  fundamentalist Islam?
The apocalyptic resurgence of secular democracy?
The liberal West rising from the ashes of  spectacular, extra-territorial terror?
The collapse of capitalistic arrogance, consumerist decadence?
The slaughter of the innocent?
The fulfillment of the prophecy of the Second Coming?
No single, definitive discourse can close the endless chain of semiotic significations any more, devoid of all intrinsic value, this play of incessant interpretations is impossible to arrest because there is no truth outside the system that would close the interpretation and give it its ultimate meaning.
Only the ones who control representation know this...that there is no truth. There is no spoon.
Every election that is virtually rigged, every social media clip that mobilizes your polarized anger against a cultural/ racial/ religious Other, is a confirmation of this 'Virtual Irreality' (Pater Sparrow), this hyperreal existence without Truth. We are so irreversibly plugged into the programme that we can not recognize its contrived nature.
This is the new way that power tries to neutralize dissent; keeps skepticism at bay and contains dissidence: by manufacturing realities at its convenience. Every person in authority knows and understands the efficacy of this tool.
The Fascist propaganda was but a trial run of this massive, pervasive and inescapable epistemic manipulation.
So where does the control end? Is there no way to break on through to the other side? Is there no refuge--the 'Zion'--of awareness and resistance? Is there no way to subvert the control that engulfs experience, sucking the air of truth out of it?
There is. And the answer lies in the old fashioned word, 'choice', made fashionable by the Existentialists, such as Sartre and his legendary girlfriend.
Choice is the only weapon of consciousness against the random anarchy of experience. This option is as old as the first martyr to reason and truth that humanity knew: Socrates.
When a cynical and coldblooded Agent Smith, poised on world dominance, exasperatedly  asks his adversary  Neo, about his resistance, the power of choice becomes apparent:
'Why Mr. Anderson? Why, why? Why.. get up? Why keep fighting?... Is it freedom? ...Truth? Perhaps peace? Could it be love?...Illusions...Vagaries of perception... Why do you persist?' A pallid, broken -down and Christic Neo replies with a cool resolve, 'because I choose to' which confuses the cyberdevil as he can not make sense of  the human consciousness justifying its meaning and purpose through choice.

Jean Paul Sartre and his legendary girlfriend Beauvoir were ardent proponents of Existential Choice, in their writing as well as in their lives lived most unconventionally as ethical experiments.

So the next time authority tries to bully you, overwhelm you, armtwist you into submission and consent, just go along, play along, give in...but never forget to wink at the surveillance camera before you do; give your oppressor a once-over before you nod; look through them before you capitulate; curl your lips in disdain as you say 'yes'.  They will falter without knowing why.
They'll know that you know.
You know that there is no spoon.

Art Under Attack

''Man was the storytelling animal, the only creature on earth that told itself stories to understand what kind of creature it was. The story was his birthright, and nobody could take it away.''-- Joseph Anton,  Salman Rushdie, 2012.
   
    As I write my blog today, the world slowly recovers from yet another cynical assault on the innocent: the attack on the Manchester concert. This has become a terror-trend of sorts--to detonate murderous hatred on gigs most popularly frequented by the (religiously/ politically disaffected) white western youth. Apart from massive concerts being soft targets of terror, where there is a huge gathering of crowd, out to have fun ( hence, relaxed, with their guards down, unlike when you are at a sensitive airport, plus the huge attendance maximizes the potential for damage and casualty ) these centres of modern urban entertainment serve as a symbolic locale for the display of spectacular violence.
 
     What Rushdie refers to as 'stories' are the very first, rudimentary attempts of mankind to find a realm of meaning outside his immediate, fleshly existence. This is the root of primordial art, and also the birth of wisdom and philosophy; of science, of progress, of the cure for the deadliest diseases to discover the alchemy of immortality. When the first, pre-lingistic hunting-gathering tribe, assembled in the evening around the communal bon-fire, recounted the story of the chase and capture of the beasts they brought for dinner, through the etched graphic narratives on the cave-wall, it was humanity's defining quest for power and glory that would set him apart from the animals he had to overpower,  in order to ensure his own survival and sustenance. This is the beginning of  'the story' that set every thing else into motion, including religion itself.

       In these troubled times, it is important to understand this deeply ambiguous relation between religion and art, and art's most problematic involvement in religious politics almost everywhere in the secular world. Today, when the grip of organized religion is rapidly loosening in the liberal west, art has increasingly come to replace it as a new source of meaning, coherence and legitimacy; the artists are our new 'gurus' who help us unravel and interpret the complexities of  a globalized, technocratic and atomized world, an unprecedented world, since the middle ages. These are the New Worlds that have opened up as a consequence of digital revolution, and in the dawn of this technological Renaissance, humanity stands on the brink of the old world again, in awe with itself .

    And this is where the insecurities of organized religion is revealed. Just as it came into conflict with the new discourse of progress that challenged its stability in the early modern world--i.e science, the lives of Galileo and Bruno are illustrative of this mortal abrasion--in a post -Renaissance culture, it has to define itself against the new, legitimizing force of art; now more than ever, when art has decoupled itself from its old master, religion, and is an alternative meta-narrative, displacing that of religion. As a meta-narrative it gives life its meaning and organizing principle: e.g rock music becomes the new religion of the secular youth.

  As a result of Reformation, Enlightenment and Capitalism in the last few centuries, we saw the fragmentation of traditional societies everywhere and the rise of the radically lonely individual, stripped of the certitudes of collective existence. Religion is the representative of that old, communal collectivity, where as art speaks for the solitary individual, the marginalized individual, the anxious, neurotic man of Edvard Munch, terrified to confront the core of his own insignificance and mortality. Religion was originally meant to be a cure for this condition, but over the years of crisis of its legitimacy, it has given rise to a few neuroses of its own; namely, the rage-filled, fundamentalist terror world-wide.

The Sceam,1893, Edvard Munch: Man Staring at His Own Nothingness
http://theartist.me/collection/oil-painting/der-schrei-der-natur-the-scream-of-nature/

   The rivalry between religion and art is essentially a conflict of principles: art is intensely individualistic, hence, subversive, perpetually undermining the inherited values and  moralities of the community where as religion, its antithetical, conservative force tries to preserve and uphold them to guarantee the perpetuation of the old status quo.  Art, as a consequence, is unpredictable, provocative, and being so, it is revolutionary; artists, everywhere the eccentric, outspoken and alienated representatives of individual conscience, against the homogenizing pressures of  religion and state.

Religion, as the bastion of  conservatism, hardly tolerates dissent, individual quirk or non- conformism, which are fertilizing ingredients for art. Religion coaxes us to 'fit in', art encourages us to 'drop out' , so that it can inspire us to look for new ways of integration and social coherence.
Artists are essentially irreligious. They are spiritual instead: the way Rumi is spiritual, or for that matter, Dylan, Lennon, or Kurosawa is; Tagore, Shakespeare or the Romantics are; Beethoven is spiritual where as Bach religious. These troubled, alienated and amoral individuals--some of whom had stirred up the most infamous personal scandals in their times-- are the prophets of modern man's anguished condition which religion can hardly fathom with its outmoded and simplifying tools. And, the more it fails in its task of giving the baffling, new world the explanation it impatiently asks for, the angrier and more frustrated it grows with the world, unleashing waves of punitive violence upon it.

        And still, religion remains the anodyne of the herd in most parts of the world; with its high, wide road straight and clearly visible from its beginning to the end, it demands a lot less, internally, out of its follower, because it is a set of externally imposed rules that are rigid, formalistic and uniform. Salvation is more or less guaranteed if you stick to the tenets. For some, it could be staying away from certain kinds of meats; for others, praying for so many times a day.
 The spiritual road, on the contrary, winding, narrow and filled with tortuous bends and turns, can throw you off course altogether. It is an internal, subjective process--evolving, growing, sometimes dialectically--within each individual. There is no promise of redemption on this road; personal enlightenment, if you are tenacious and lucky, is the most that might come to you. Art is the flickering torch that illuminates this treacherous trajectory, at rare, blessed moments. Religion as a system is so self-sufficient that it does not need anything other than itself. Naturally, it reacts with intolerance when individuals or groups ignore its magnificent power and defect to the other side, seduced by the enemy's beauty.

           So every time a rock stadium is bombed in England or France, a Charlie Hebdo office is ripped by cynical violence, a Salman Rushdie or M.F Hussain has to live in self-imposed exile to escape assassination attempts at home, theatre screens are burned to stall the release of films that the religious establishment disapproves of, when the media forums are ablaze with debate over responsibility, it would be judicious to remember the root of the crisis in the field of dicourse, rather than practice; it would be foolish to see them as failures of intelligence and security, of governance and political appeasement in general, because the assault is symbolic, just as the warfare itself is more symbolic than literal.
         Socrates drank poison to defend the legitimacy of his personal conviction, refusing to compromise with the dominant power that attempted to neutralize the firepower of his radical thinking. That legacy gave us the Renaissance and eventually, Modernity, a couple of millennia later.

 We are not heroes, true, but we too are humans, not very far from Socrates' all too human rebellion against ignorance and compromise. Not surrendering to insane violence is important.