Blasphemy no. 5

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Fundos vs Nouveaus

Here is a pictorial representation of the big bang. it's an intriguing image which charts our momentous journey across time and space. and with regards to our notions of 1000 words, it is an eloquent manner of comprehending the vastness of the passage that creation, or matter, or reality has seemed to take.

yet the first thought that struck me when i saw this picture – i think it was the first thought – was that why is it all only traveling in one direction? it seems to be pretty obvious that explosions travel in a vaguely circular manner. this seems to depict a cannon shooting in a particular direction.

i think that there is a reasonable, rational scientific explanation. for example, the axis for time follows a path from 0 to Now, and as such requires a liner view of the events. but it reminded me of a physics lesson from my IB's. our professor, who at times appeared to be exasperated at inquisitiveness, was trying to explain something about the universe and its finite boundaries. and me and a couple of other kids kept asking him - “but if the universe is finite, isn't it in something?”
i don't know if you get this. the point was that if there is some object that constitutes of matter, then surely it is within something else. the end of its boundaries must mark the beginning of something else, something which is not the object in question.

(it may be interesting to note that all those asking the question were from developing countries.)

his stuttering rebuttals, and pleading assertions that he was telling us what was right left me with a certain skepticism about the whole thing. and before you all go up in arms, i concede that I'm not a creationist or a proponent of intelligent design. i'm confused. and it seems to me that a lot of us are. certainly everyone i know seems to be.

but while the people i know may be confused, humanity in general doesn't seem to be so. in fact, when you look at the world, and not the people you know, you get the idea that everyone seems to have a really good idea of what they're doing, and why its right. predictably, as a pakistani, my first thoughts go the taliban and the fundos and all their like-minded brethren.

they seem to be pretty damned assertive in their self-righteousness. they're so sure that it allows them to justify blowing up bombs in political rallies, cd markets, prayer halls and us-assisted governmental investigative agencies. the idea being that the fear and terror spread by such acts would convince their targets to change their ways. now before you get washed over by your instinctive reactions (and the fundos always elicit instinctive reactions) consider this image.
i don't know who caused this boy to lose his leg, but its what happens every time there is some carnage filled catastrophe. and at some level they must know that this is what they are doing, and not all of their victims are scum-infested infidels as i'm sure they've realised. but yet it hasn't stopped them, and while you can identify with their rage at some level, it staggers the mind to think of the unadulterated violence perpetuated in the name of islam.

but what intrigues even further is that they are not alone, but rather their compulsive attitude seems reflective of our times. if we stay within pakistan and move towards the newly affluent middle class we see the same problems. pakistan in many ways is watching its infrastructure and its amenities simply melt down. we don't have enough power, enough water, enough security.

but we the rich buy bigger generators, install larger power pumps, bribe more important water officials, hire more security guards. maybe the problem can't be avoided, but wealth allows us to circumvent it. we are blissfully oblivious of the fact that our actions are only speeding up the process of our own annihilation. its a sentiment that echoes well with the actions of the fundos as well. we complain of the heat as we douse ourselves in flames.

( if we return to the picture from the start, sometimes it seems to me that the truth lies on the other end of the big bang, maybe just a few steps away. yet we've spent all this time rushing towards the opposite direction.)

but if i go back to my point, one remedy that we choose to seek in pakistan, regardless of age, wealth, ethnicity, literacy, gender or religion, is that we choose to blame this on some sort of endemic, systemic, institutional reason. and consequently, the very few who feel compelled to address these problems look for systemic, institutional answers.
if you allow me to digress, i have worked with various NGOs headed by extremely able and intelligent people. yet their children were educated abroad, drove their own cars and got addicted to cocaine. now don't get me wrong, these are not your aunty NGOs. one was probably the most successful NGO model in all of south asia. and despite their foreign education and drug habits, their kids were fun, intelligent, compassionate people. but their manners and habits were consumerist and compulsive, and led to self-destructive ends.

and so the question arises. why have these people failed at their children even when they have achieved so much in a country notorious for its failings? why have the taliban sought to bring a return to the islamic ideal when their methods lead to the deaths of so many of the innocent?
the answer lies in an interview i read today of Syed Hossein Nasr, a Muslim American scholar who's also a Sufi. this is what he said

“What is tragic today is that there is a number of Muslims who think that all the solutions are to be found simply by external actions. They don’t have to do anything within themselves. This is a deeply Western idea – modern, Western idea, where you try to improve the world without improving yourself.”

i found it to be a brilliant observation. because what the fundos and the nouveau riche would like you to believe is that the other side is deluded and their vision dystopian. that allows you to believe that the Other does nothing but act in its pure self interest. and its either completely oblivious to their acts of destruction, or worse yet, totally aware of them and hell bent on perpetuating its sadist ideals.

the truth i feel is that both sides, and everyone in between, finds refuge in their compulsions and addictions. whether that addiction is towards consumer driven materialism or religion fueled fundamentalism, they feel that they can sacrifice a little part of their souls to achieve that end point ideal, which can either mean vanquishing the infidels, or attaining the most desirable set of status symbols.

its a path that is driving us, me, to destruction. for my part, i pledge to try and change myself. the rest of the world can follow, if it wants.

On the Demerits of Modernity or why slutty behaviour should no longer be risque

Here's something to titillate you.

Miss Bimbo is an online registration game where you get a "bimbo" to tend to.

The goal of the game is to make your Bimbo the " the hottest of hot Bimbos," which involves dating "that famous hottie," becoming a "socialite and skyrocket[ing] to the top of fame and popularity," and even resorting "to meds or plastic surgery", because girls should "Stop at nothing to become the reigning bimbo!"

The catch, is that the game has over 200,000 users who are between the ages seven to seventeen.

The average age is nine to twelve year old females.

How wholesome.

You can read more about this here, and here, and here.

Notice how in order to validate my claims, i provided several links to various websites. It comes from a habit garnered during the time i would write academic papers. The trick is that you always make sure that whatever you are saying, or reporting, is attributed to someone, somewhere.

It's not really a trick as much as its the law. or the rule.

it extends to journalism as well for example. if you don't attribute your claim, then you are just stating an opinion. any information, in order to be regarded as legitimate 'truth', requires for it to be backed up by someone.

but not just anyone. someone of authority. and the more someones you have, the more authoritative your 'truth' becomes. essentially then, contemporary times require that truth be a collaborative entity. the falling tree does not make any sound if there is no one to hear it.

that leads to the creation of a cataclysmic disconnect between what is perceived reality, and what is legally reality. if you can't prove it, it doesn't exist. of course, it is the preserve of sad blogger types to whine incessantly about how such situations are somehow debasing some vague notion of what 'should' be, but the fact of the matter is that this is it. how things 'are.'

but this collaboration in the creation/verification of truth is an intrinsic facet of the contemporary/western/modernized world. by having something which can be proven, you can apply a law to it. in order for laws to exist and function, there must be a ready manner for reality to be determined and be acted upon so that 'justice' can be ultimately delivered.

And modernity, as Weber foresaw, is big on rules and laws.

but if our sense of justice is based upon a system which requires you to fashion truth upon a foundation of authority, and that sense of authority resides solely within institutions and not personalities*, then some intriguing conclusions can be drawn.

*(Its a well established fact that the idea of authority stemming from individuals is a throwback from the bad days of monarchs and absolute power. Modern ideas of authority are intrinsically rooted in the ideas of institutions being the purveyors of all things worth being obeyed.just take my word for it.)

because we can now claim that we do not have to affiliate ourselves to what we know to be traditional (also known as indigenous, cultural etc) values or morals, but rather to institutions of our choosing. and institutions can be defined as “established law, practice, or custom.” Customs are “a traditional and widely accepted way of behaving or doing something that is specific to a particular society, place, or time”

Now in a world of i-want-it-i-got-it individuality customs can be rapidly established, especially those of a viral web-savvy nature. but in order for customs to be established as institutions they require validation, from some sort of institutional authority. and something like ms. bimbo can achieve that validation simply by becoming a popular website. because once you are popular, you have achieved celebrity, and celebrity status can bestow institutional authority.

i concede, that last statement was a head-spinner.

the reasons i would equate celebrity to institutional authority are many, but i would boil them down to five letters – Paris. as in the hilton heiress. despite all your protests, what paris does is increasingly followed around the world. for all that rankles about her, people accept her as some sort of authority on how to live “the good life.”

if nothing else, it can be proven that the world is extremely interested in her. a google search for her throws up 80 million websites. a search for pope benedict xvi throws up 5 million websites. george w bush, arguably the world's most powerful head of state, shows up on 49 million websites. so we can see that paris fascinates the world.

but what i must stress here is that it is not paris who is an institution, but rather her status as a celebrity. the institution here is celebrity, not paris hilton. the comparison with bush and the pope was to explain that celebrity dwarves both religion and politics. and like the pope and bush, paris won't be around forever. but in our epoch, the preeminence of celebrity as an institution will be unquestioned.

soooo, did the idea of 7 year olds jostling for breast jobs bother you? have you realised now why it shouldn't?

its how things are now. face it.