Of Guilt, God and Money

Society has witnessed death of God. Of what was held with so much surety until now is under doubt. The dichotomy of good and evil is replaced with a more blur question—‘what is wrong with that?’ The general sort of reasoning, which should be in terms of cause and effect in the event of death of God, is now bluntly placed before us in the form—what is bad in it? And you ask me what is bad in it, I say nothing. You ask me what is good in it, I say nothing. I mean when you start asking that type of questions, not only you are sure to get no reasonable answer, in fact you end any means of rational thinking. A subject of this curious question is money, comfort.

What’s wrong with money! What’s obnoxious about it! As I said anyone concerning his conscience with that question will never, in his life, be able to assert that he is asking himself a timidly bootless question. One, who asks it, will convince himself anyway that there is nothing wrong in it. For a man always convince his conscience to be on the right side even before one commits murder for no purpose at all. It may sound ludicrous yet it is true. A man must have firm conviction of right before one act. A man must do right. So how it is that he starts torturing himself with guilt of having done wrong? The feeling of wrong comes only with external agency—an agency which forces the individual to realize his wrong. A deed is not wrong or right when it is committed but only when it is judged. You see, murder of a human being is heinous in our judicial system and is reproached severely. Subsequently it is a crime, a wrong, abhorring and hence loathed. However killing an animal for meat is not murder. Why? Is it not life? I suggest you read my post titled ‘Origin of…’ where I contemplate on the origins of such type of morality. But for now let’s proceed. It is not loathed—leave a few societies like Jains—and here you see clearly that for a wrong, crime to exist there must be a body forcing repugnance, calling deliberately to us and inducing guilt. For thousands of years this work was done by religions although clumsily. But here I am not bothering myself fighting for animal rights. I like meat, have no intention to ban it legally. What I am trying to convey here is that man has thought and worked only on guilt, conscience and therefore is bound to fail when the “general guilt pattern” changes. If you don’t have a reason to support a purpose, naturally guilt can’t bear the burden for long. There is no external agency now to check the mad rush for money; there is void left in the place of guilt producing factory. And I am glad that there is. We need a reason and not guilt. Why should money not be the sole measure of all things? Why should it not drive all our endeavours? Where is the reason to support it? There is a vacuum.

I regard money acquiring the same place as a few centuries ago was filled with the magnanimous God. In the name of God everything is permitted; in the name of money everything is permitted. And how much reasonable it seems! How much logical!  How backward are those who condemn it! The society we live in always carry a weighing balance. On one scale they have an idea, on the other its monetary equivalent. A few centuries ago the other scale was reserved for God. What we have got to oppose this? Remnants of guilt from religion lying there, decaying with time, sometimes deteriorating with a vigour and giving an illusion of revival though the zeal is the struggle of a flame when someone sprinkles water on it. I have never been fond of such edifices of guilt.

Only man, in the entire realm of living, has got the gift of being raised to speculate future. He speculates and comes to conclusion that possessions, in whatever form, hoarding, in whatever form, is the only means to better future. Is his speculation right? Is his speculation independent from the structures of society? His speculation is right. His speculation is not independent from the structures of society. Here we see a reason itself provided by the society and hence it triumphs. Whatever is strong, wins! Evil is strong and it wins. It is a blatant myth that good always win. Possessions, money, hoarding ultimately decides your treatment in society. The reason is strong and it wins; it survived millenniums after millenniums. Religion tried to counter it with guilt—weak so to say—and is failing. Where is the reason? It is missing! So what can stop that mad rush? Reason itself which nowhere to be found: a void that needs to be filled. 21^st century is devoured by corruption. One direct reason is—more number of people given the opportunity to acquire which was otherwise reserved for few in early days. Intellectuals define corruption to be decaying of morality or deviation from normal or a more popular one is: preferring private gains over public duties. I say: Corruption is responding to reason, sidelining, looking askance at guilt to acquire what is most prized in society—money, power, domination. Reason triumphs, guilt fails. You need a reason against it, not some sort of complex spying structure where each spies on the other. Now there is a class of people that blames everything on human nature. I say greed, they say human nature; I say war, they say human nature; I say money, they say human nature. Hell with human nature! Human nature is blank! Zero!

As I said, with God and money everything is permitted, not in the sense that each has the freedom to do whatever one wishes but anything that can be astutely attributed to be God’s wish, or in the case of money to be yielding profit—no matter how much stupid, no matter how much catastrophic. For example, consider the food we eat today. There is tremendous change in what we eat over the last fifty years than we had over the last thousand years. A preferred, thoroughly tested diet, conforming to our evolutionary buds is changed so suddenly only to conform to the standards of profit. Result is there for you to analyse. The food which is worthless, to the body obviously, is cheapest; the food which is necessary is slowly leaving our meal. To be short, we eat crap because it’s cheap. Thank Money—addressed as God—we don’t eat our own crap because it’s free. What sort of economics or reasoning is that? You can find numerous such examples. Once the “market” approves them, they become reasonable. I have seen the absurdest of ideas thriving just for the sake of money. Comfort made the goal of life! Comfort is against evolution—evolutionary strength to be precise. How pitiful are those ailing, disease ridden creatures that care about the softness of pillow of their hospital bed! Any truth which is against life is no truth at all. And then they ask you to fulfill your thirst for comfort and money through legitimate ways? What is legitimate? Money is same whether it comes from cutting throat of some person, by lurking in a dark corner or by writing software making your back ache as if punished for something.  A noble man will stand up indignantly and lament—“Mr. Backward there is guilt in the first case.” I say—“What guilt? I don’t feel any unless you force it on me.” You feel guilt only because you have a system in place to condemn you, torture you. However, in the second case you don’t have one. A programmer may write a part of a program which is to benefit a guy like Hitler in some way—obviously unknowingly as he (programmer) is so noble—is a professional. Another great creature who writes a part of a program which helps marketing a product online that has resulted in millions of diseases, deaths and skewed lifestyle is a more revered professional. Professionalism! OMM! Oh my Money! As I told you, for guilt there must be an external agency. Without it there is no bad. Bad or evil—that is presently not classified as evil—grows in the direction where it finds no lingering guilt. Guilt is useless in that purpose because it can never effect the inception. It is reactionary—finding its way once the problem is thousand paces ahead. What should I say of how money has stupefied all senses? What terrible storm it unleashed on human relations? In what horrendous way it has streamlined the goal of all humanity! Oh! When I hear chants of growth, I nauseate. I need fresh air: a place that does not stink. A paroxysm of rage, feeling of disgust seizes those proponents of growth if you question a single letter of growth. We are backward, uncivilized holding up their growth. They sweep, with a single sway of their hand, anonymous populations, enormous vegetations and all that is natural—that is backward—to spur their “Growth Horse”. Profit and money being their God!

Once you make money the measure of all things, there is no way you can use guilt to stop a rush for it. Guilt, conscience hinders everything new, even good ones. Once you cross that threshold, guilt vanishes like it never was; only reason lasts.                   

The Linguistic Farce

My mind is crocheting some of the most bizarre thoughts these days, however I need to be dry enough to soak them, I need more time to grasp and make a thorough structure out of them. These thoughts, I think, are quite radical and out of my domain too in current cognition. So any attempt to handle them unripe would only yield and taste sour to me and maybe bitter to whomsoever it may serve as a meal. Therefore, I will not play with it. Instead I will bite some more out of my earlier fruit—the fruit of language; this fruit taste sweet.

A few days ago I was contemplating of results had language—a fully formed one—been a gift of God. Though a sign language would not make much difference yet I choose a language with words and human ability to spoken language as a prerequisite to attack the beliefs of Abrahamic religions. You may refer to earlier ideas in my post – ‘Language and complexity of Universe’. I find this post a continuation of my earlier one. Here we will explore the treasure-trove of the strange events which language subjects us to.

Let us step into our cave—a cave of knowledge, rather speculative knowledge. Abrahamic religions, in fact all sorts of major religions never find themselves easy to shed light on how actually language was first learned by humans. Subsequently to fill up pits in their logic they dig up the soil of God and make it even—a leveled ground for humanity to walk on. However in the event of such cover up there is always a possibility of sinking due to heavy load of knowledge. Let us explore different possibilities.

 

We, as a result of our observation, can safely conclude that language is not an inborn quality; the ability to learn language can be inborn. Language need to be learned through conscious effort. What about Adam and Eve? What about those ‘lucky in the most unlucky sense’ human souls? What language they knew? Different Abrahamic religions claim, according to their beliefs, a language of their choice. They are adamant that man was fully aware of his being when he landed on earth and not just being but much more than that—much more in the sense of Language. You see, when we assume language as a divine gift we need to simultaneously assert that man need to know some words, symbol representations, meaning of the words as a prerequisite and how to ramble those words in order to make sense out of it. Let us be generous and assume even that for the sake of doing justice to our Generosity.

What does our generous deed reap? Or seed of our generosity got spoiled? We discover that we have “a father” even before the act of one becoming a father, just because of language. We have one knowing, both Adam and Eve, about “mother” even before existence of first mother is witnessed. We have testimonials of one knowing of son, brother, sister, daughter even before the event of actually having witnessed such an event gladly. All sorts of definitions of relationships existing before the actual occurrence for the very first time! Nomenclature of undiscovered elements—absurdity of epic proportions! Even Absurdity would jump out of shock and ask—‘Am I really absurd? I haven’t been defined yet, not experienced yet!’ You see the “Linguistic Farce” does not stop just at individual relationships. It goes onto every single dimension of life. Pre-history would be ashamed of itself. Now even before the first rose is seen by Adam, he knows of it. Senses are being betrayed and the act of defining is mocked. A square is fully formed in Adam’s and Eve’s mind just to laugh at those who observed and discovered a square, rather invented it. A surface is “round”, “flat” even before it is defined to be round or flat; a “wheel” is lurking in some corner of Adam’s mind only to be ignored till the time is ripe; a “freedom” brings joy even before one has been enslaved; “good” before first good deed or first defined good deed; “sin” before first sin. But wait sin was there! Yes the sin of forbidden fruit! What am I saying! Are fairy tales told without language? “Existence” before definition of existence! “Man” before knowledge of man; “Knowledge” before knowledge; “God” before God.

With this immense gift at his disposal and the ability to put will in the form of words in some finite sequence of words, you can imagine how he defied the act of doing, experiencing, sensing to the pinnacle of idiocy. Senses stoop to Brain and ask—‘Are we any use to you, my lord?’ The act of observing and defining is now secondary to the act of knowing—you know even before you saw, even before you touched, even before you felt, even before you smelt, heard, tasted and comprehended. I am sure you understood the drama we played here. You can guess now who created whom.