I wrote something deep, or I imagine I did.
Updated: Jun 20
Why is it not possible that one human can't help another. According to the older myths, we tend to gel with people who are exactly like us, or who resemble us, so much so that it reminds us of our own biases, our own existential presuppositions, our past, our decisions, our immediate societies, our interactions, and generally the humans we meet and learn from.
What do you do when you gel, or make relationships with somebody who is unlike you. You are confused about this conundrum - is it that people belonging to a specific caste make their own community, setting, institutions and parcel sensibilities- or do you make places where different people can meet together. I prefer the latter. I prefer one in which, the person who says the former realises that they are also casteist (quote Toni Morrison, not doing it now). But now we have come to the major part of this conundrum, which is if you get something, or it seems to add to people who are like you, or who have shared your same set of 'experiences' (whatever that means) why would you bring in people who are unlike you (I genuinely wish if this were a question of likeness) or are you hiding your satisfaction and well-being, or are these negative advantages.
What is the advantage, what do you get, and what is your say in it (taking it for granted that you meet for advantage).
And through all this search, moving through different kinds of things that probably I shouldn't have had by now (this I have to claim), gone through I have come to realise that, while you incur from likeness, like a portrait that looks exactly like the model, you never act out of likeness. You are never stirred or used (not going into the possibilities of this word and In a good way) or are even alive because you are 'like' somebody. Do people from diverse communities participate in a certain space irrespective of modes and means based on birth, origin etc, or is it that the space is made of a certain number of people already? (be it books, language, libraries, universities, people, relations etc). This conundrum is a matter of life that we haven't lived, and it is close to impossible to find an answer to this.
For instance, George Eliot's sacrifice means this; you never know what you have left out. No, not the unlived life. The unlived life still carries a string of possibilities. You can recreate those possibilities. But this, when there is another moving, living human, what do we do with them, on pure terms of advantage (not in terms of, such a Lovely Dovey person but on pure terms of what you get). So if you as a human are moving, the other human is also moving, it is quite like finding out the relative velocity of two moving trains, which Einstein was doing I guess, but Einstein is only concerned about velocity, we are concerned about people inside the trains, and those people with each other.
Wittgenstein ends his lecture on ethics with this final remark, "Ethics so far as it springs from the desire to say something about the ultimate meaning of life, the absolute good, the absolute valuable, can be no science. What it says does not add to our knowledge in any sense. But it is a document of a tendency in the human mind which I personally cannot help respecting deeply and I would not for my life ridicule it". Ethics is not falsifiable, you cannot disprove ethics, you know what I mean. And therefore, for that matter, I am not somebody who has grown up reading or hoarding George Eliot, I don't even care about George Eliot (who is she) but she does, she is. I am not somebody who grew up in any authoritarian background, she did. I am not the one who is scared of intimacy, she is. That's what I mean.
This anomaly is big. That's what perhaps Milosz means when he writes "the purpose of poetry is to remind us / how difficult it is to remain just one person." The experience of any trauma, the madness and the strange happenings are all in Milosz. He is unfamiliar and apocalyptic (I don't know his caste, Poland doesn't have caste I think), but it all shows in what he does. He means navigating the shady spaces, which we never know. The shady space of no knowledge, no disproving. Dealing with that anomaly is no more about use or misuse (I am not getting into that, I have a whole lot to go on about that). Do you live like bees in a community, or hyenas braying indifferent for its prey, or like a lone wolf, out of its community, or do you make the community better, or do you host a particular place which can accommodate different people from different communities, which one is safer? which one- is more secure? For the first, do you focus on certain means and modes, such as health, education, happiness, wealth, human rights, law, all those sorts of things, for the latter, the hospitals, universities, their motivations, judiciary, things or theories, propositions, science, arts and more?
I mean if somebody keeps saying oppressed castes three-four times at me, what is my advantage in hearing that again and again. I feel sad and heartbroken, but why would I listen to it still (if you generally, common-sensically know, this is not how things add or multiply. You feel it, don't you). Nobody is hiding that, one cannot hide it. We know it as soon as someone walks in, or we know it some way. Like, somebody from your family (who is not oppressed caste) told you this, whatever you do, wherever you go, everyone knows and will know. And yes, precisely, everyone will know. You are not hiding anything here. You are not trying to circumvent knowledge (yours or others), that's nobody's business, and that probably is only possible with other knowledge. But all you are trying to see is what can be done with this predicament you are already provided with.
If you are thinking of a human when you say oppressed castes; there is, probably, an irony. And irony as Olga Tockarzuk says "That's what I dislike most of all in people- cold irony. It's a very cowardly attitude to mock or belittle everything, never committed to anything, and not feel tied to anything". Now, if one's intention is to create places that can provide, and is safe - or if it is to create the community, I don't know what can be done about it, probably those divisions are means of behaviour, identity, who we are etc- as I said trying not to overcome knowledge. Because knowledge, I believe, is always predisposed, can we do anything about it? Not really, even if these 'experiences' are completely afar, or even if we are caught in this rat-race of familiarising the experiences of others, still can you walk past knowledge? Can we explain other people's causes as our own? Never can we, to be honest, what happens in the mind, always rests in the mind, and matters of the heart should and only remain as matters of the heart. I can never say the same thing about the 'not oppressed caste' you know what I mean, (because that's 'not' the 'oppressed caste', exactly the problem). It only works one way. It is like that Toni Morrison question, which is, why would you only ask that question of writing about race all the time because this book only has black people in it. And she goes on, "...While I have tried my entire life to make meaning in the lives, without the white gaze". How humiliating is that?
It takes effort to realise and therefore define - what exactly is service, help, money and dignity- all those crazy stuff- because I don't see that happening much - really. Whenever I see some guy keeping the bags up for me, all I got to say to him is don't do it, just don't do it, (not because I have had people in my life keeping bags up for me but do not do it, I am not worth any of your efforts or time).
I should be in the parliament, ok thank you. for some Indian fun I recommend this song -