Knowledge

TRUE KNOWLEDGE

True knowledge only gives independence, I said. The question arose what true knowledge is. I set thinking. We say certain things often at the heat of the moment, but find it difficult to explain it. But, my statement came from an inner conviction and I do not feel I have blurted. All the same, to make it intelligible in non-metaphysical terms calls for effort.

Knowledge is acquired in ever so many ways from our childhood. We start learning about the basic needs of life first. Curiosity builds up about the surroundings. We keep learning aimlessly. Formal education starts at some stage for the majority of us. Formal education has for its purpose today some vocational pursuit sooner or later. The general knowledge that is imparted in early stages also sets the stage for acquiring some systematised knowledge of a chosen discipline, which has proven commercial potential.

We can thus think of informal knowledge that is acquired in formative years and formal knowledge that is acquired in seminaries.

When I learnt, I wanted to learn just like that. I never looked whether it would have a useful purpose to earn a living. There was something to learn and I should learn it cent per cent. Any deficiency meant failure. Of course, I did not succeed cent per cent. We have today coaches training how to pass an examination or interview. The educational institutions also are examination-oriented. In my school and college days, several students would read only the notes and not the texts. Such pursuits break the backbone of education and kill the joy of learning, but this awareness is not shared. Education is a means to an end and not an end. Such is the belief that has currency widely.

What is true knowledge and how do we go about it? True knowledge is that which gives complete clarity, lack of any doubt and the confidence to defend it free of surprises at the criticism levelled against it. Not that we have to take up cudgels for or run a crusade on it. We should have a rock solid belief in the knowledge. Such knowledge inspires and motivates. 

The first requirement for true knowledge is free mind. We are entering choppy waters now. We started with the proposition that independence depends on true knowledge and now we come upon free mind as necessary for true knowledge. Freedom and independence are related and we have entered circular logic. I need to pause and examine the solidity of my premise before I can build on it. We can try another word though change of word may not end the problem of begging the question. 

Awareness is the condition precedent to gaining true knowledge. We can acknowledge that there are times when our mind is totally receptive compared to others when it is in messy knots. When we are aware, our mind stops its excursions and incursions and listens attentively to what is on offer. It is not dumb, it is not at cross-purposes; it is not unquestioning, it is inquisitive to get to the pith and marrow rather than stick at the skin. It is not submissive, it is humble with a motive that is mere learning. It avoids both favourable and antagonistic attitudes. It wants to know and that is it. 

Why do we want this knowledge? Have we got some use for it? These may be necessary before we begin to learn something. But the use to which it may be put does not define the knowledge. Once we have chosen to learn it for whatever reason, such reason has no further role in the process. The avidity to know possesses us, but does not addle the mind. We do not have the least desire to direct our effort manipulatively.  

Explaining awareness in other words, what we need to observe while learning is silence. In a class, we observe silence when the teacher teaches. When there is cross talk, the teacher shouts ‘silence’. When we learn, we may not observe this silence. It distracts and the learning is impeded. More than verbal silence, silence of the mind is important. This again is a tricky subject. Silence of the mind is a precondition for learning and is the result of true knowledge. There is a qualitative difference. In the former, there is a blankness and receptivity whereas in the latter there is clarity and completeness. It is getting esoteric and we will not delve deeper. When the mind is silent, devoid of distractions and preoccupations, it is aware and this awareness leads to proper learning.

Knowledge can be personal or testimonial. We cannot acquire all knowledge by direct experience. We learn form others. But there is an element of doubt when the knowledge is through a secondary source. Ordinarily, if not as a rule, true knowledge is gained directly i.e. personally. It is in matters of metaphysics that we may choose to rely on the knowledge of seers or prophets. That, however, is not the topic of discussion.   

I have just said what facilitates true knowledge in more words rather than what it is. Let us see if a few examples will take us closer to our destination.

Let us take knowledge of how to talk. Talking is an aid to communicate something. Its purpose is to convey a fact (an incident, etc.), a feeling or an opinion. There could be a further list, but this covers the gamut virtually. 

The idea of truth crops up here. A priori what we talk should be truth. Falsehood or prevarication is perhaps a vitiation that came later. Talking truth is thus posited as a gospel because it is self-explicit that truth is the basis for talking and no other. 

Semitic faith does not have a satisfactory solution to occasions that make talking the truth undesirable.  The Manu Smriti, which is the Hindu code of conduct, lays down that we should talk that which is true and also pleasant. We can’t utter something which is untrue or unpleasant. That was a digression.

As making ourselves understood is the purpose in talking, we have to ensure that execution matches the aim. We may be too terse that the matter goes over the head or our expression is ambiguous. We may on the other hand weary the listener by being verbose or using words not in current parlance. We may deliver it at a pace unsuited to the listener. A good talker chooses the right words and delivers them at the required pace and has his antenna tuned to the body language of the listener to pick up the feedback and vary his pace or even discontinue, either because the other has understood or is impervious to it. I have seen people completing the quota of words that they are armed with even if the purpose is achieved. Talking is not to be done as a speech which is completed even amidst heckling. Here we have made a distinction between talking and speech. We will not elaborate.

Knowledge is to fear as light is to darkness. When we were young, perhaps even now, we are afraid of the dark. We do not know what lurks unseen in the dark. There may be nothing, but we are not certain of it. The Vedic prayer also says ‘lead me to light from darkness’. Light removes darkness and the fear goes of darkness. In a way light brought knowledge of the nothingness and the fear vanished. Knowledge that there was nothing came personally and indubitably. We attained true knowledge and it did away with fear.

When we are afraid of something, we need to know what the feared thing is and what of it causes fear. We are wary of new company at times, but when we get to know them, we become freer. Not that we would have made a once-for-all discovery, but the initial reservation evaporates. 

True knowledge steers clear of judgement. When we sort things and people on a scale, we run into problems. In Christian theology, the day of judgement is final. I take it to be symbolic. We can arrive at a judgement only when everything about a thing is known, a tall order. When we have arrived at that state, judgement will be in order, but then no judgement will arise in the mind. In the state of true knowledge, we will see everything as it is and also the process it has taken to be what it is and the fact that it could not be otherwise than what it is. Buddhism seems to suggest just that: everything is as it should be.

I have ended the piece in metaphysical terms though I made a promise to avoid it. I am not sure I have given a good account of the topic. But I have made an effort with serious consideration. 

“Awareness of our ignorance is true knowledge”.

June 6, 2015 

Fake knowledge

Often we trade others’ knowledge, not our own. If, for instance, I read Vedanta and parade what I read, I am simply acting as a conduit. That knowledge is still not mine because I have read, not experienced, it. 

Knowledge: Do we have authentic knowledge?

Most of our knowledge is borrowed. It depends on what we read, and worse still, on what we believe. Not just religious views, almost any view. Religious belief is easy to attack because in most cases it stands out as a sore thumb.

Our knowledge of history is also based on belief. It is almost impossible for us to know firsthand from the sources the history that is constructed by the historians. The historians are not paragons of impartiality. They have a baggage and a bias, often hidden cleverly by their skill of communication. As Durant said, eloquence sacrifices accuracy. History is for the most part the imagination of the historians. We should not mistake their power of expression as proof of their authenticity. I do not allege that all of them palm off untruth for a political end, but I strongly sense that they have a belief based on sketchy evidence which guides their writing. As in poetry, so in history, rich imagery and padding up makes up for the body encasing a slender, if any, fact. Luckily, knowledge of history is not crucial to life unless one wants to gloat on some past glory or nurse some sense of injury of a past wrong.

‘Robert Burton feels (like Thoreau) that if he reads the news of one day he may take it for granted the rest of the year, merely changing names and dates.’ Reading history through Durant, I get a similar feeling about history.

‘Robert Burton confesses that he knows the world only through books.’ Now, children get knowledge from electronic media. Direct knowledge is more and more non-existent.

How much do I really know? Knowledge can become secure only if it has been examined critically while acquiring and vetted by experience. Such authentic knowledge is bound to be rare.

How authentic is our knowledge?

We scratch at the epidermis often. That is what we do with living. We are free of control or knowledge of the vital functions. We just do mechanical and repetitive things like eating, sleeping and removing waste. Life goes on with no real part for us.

When we probe subcutaneously, we see what calls in question that surface reality. We are at times bewildered. We become puzzled in understanding and ambiguous in expression. We begin to know more that little we know.

We know that we do not know. (If I sounded like I know, that is arrogance on top of ignorance).

We want to know. This is essential for understanding. Answers are not what we need, but understanding. I will make an enigmatic statement: understanding may come without answers. Questioning is key to understanding. We will know in course which questions are really significant. We will know the way to understanding. It is not necessary to explain it to anyone. To be sure, I am in the beginning stage.

We do not accept testimonial evidence. We want the long route of questioning and probing. Acceptance shuts knowledge for ever. That is the mischief religion has done.

This is the methodology of science and believe me or not, that of Upanishads that were millennia older than modern science. The vibrancy of Hinduism is based on acceptance of divergence and relentless personal enquiry into truth, not sheepish acquiescence.

We are somehow led to believe that there must be a reason for everything. Possibly, we must question this belief.

Where reason does not work:

1.     Ordinary living. We are guided by instinct and habit, tradition and social norms.

2.     Love

3.     Etiquettes and conventions

4.     Relationship with the senior for the most part.

5.     Tastes

6.     Faith

Almost in every manner of living, we use reason the least.

March 14, 2017

There are limits to what we can know. It is not just the capacity of individual brains that is the constraint. The brain has been programmed so as to view the surroundings from the angle of survival, and we as humans seem to have some extra capacity, but still it is operating under the evolutionary paradigm. It is an inadmissible question whether we can know beyond what our brain is programmed for.

·

All our knowledge may be tautological like Mathematics and Logic. We start wih certain assumptions and build on them. The end result is not any new knowledge but a restatement of the assumptions. It is obvious in Mathematics where we ‘prove’ an equation. The two sides represent one and the same thing. It is deceptive in natural sciences. We should not be fooled by the utility of these disciplines. We are talking of knowledge. Do we (as humanity) attain new knowledge? It is something I can’t answer. We must turn to great thinkers, but it looks to me that the great thinkers are at a loss and are not able to assure us that we discover something new. But they provide us enough to mull over and spend the intellectual life in what strikes as useful, just as science and technology have increased the ways we engage physically and mentally creating a virtual world that is a new way of spending life after basic needs are met. 

June 27, 2016 ·

Knowledge

" ‘No man of science ever has in view the utility of his work,’ said Liebig; indeed, he is too much absorbed by science itself to consider any ulterior aim.”

J H W Stuckenberg

Knowledge developed as a result of the attempt to satisfy curiosity. It spread because of the urge to show that we know. Knowledge stood out as a means of distinction and ability to influence, leading to the dictum ‘Knowledge is power.’ Pursuit of knowledge was for a time for becoming knowledgeable. Knowledge expanded and branched out. The pursuit could no longer be such as to produce an Aristotle or Leonardo Da Vinci. True versatility is impossible in today’s world (even if it were possible once). 

Systematic dissemination of knowledge is possible only through institutions with defined courses and syllabus. Schools and colleges are inevitable. Education is the name of the game.

Education in its essence must sharpen the mind (not cram it) to observe (look for facts in experience), understand (learn the behaviour and interaction of what is observed), organise (put the facts in an apparent sequence) and harmonise (find a peaceful and useful existence in the world of such knowledge). Does this obtain?

Knowledge is pleasure and there will always be much to know. Knowledge is not a series of opinions. We are too eager to have an opinion even before understanding and that causes a stumbling block to real knowledge. Socrates and J.Krishnamurthy used to ask questions and did not answer. Even in Upanishad (Taittriya Upanishad), the guru asks the disciple to meditate and find the answer and each time the disciple comes with an incomplete answer, the disciple is asked to meditate more. Answers have to come from within. That is the way to know and understand. But, the knowledge cannot be static and static knowledge is deadwood.

Today, knowledge is rarely pursued for its own sake. There has to be an economic trade-off. One would rather qualify rather than study. One would seek to attain that much knowledge which will suffice to qualify. One would try to byheart an answer rather than rely on understanding to answer any question. One would like to know the questions beforehand. We have a wonderful culture where the teacher is at fault if a student fares badly. (vadyar karam vecchuttaru – the teacher has tried to settle some score). Or, the question paper was tough.

In college, a lecturer mentioned to me in a chat, ‘We can have a two-way stream. Anyone who attends classes (minimum), may qualify, but to get a grade, one must sit for exam that will test understanding.’ It is not a bad idea. As of now, no one takes the mark sheet at face value. An entrance exam is conducted. Some schools conduct entrance test for the plus one even if a student has passed from the same school itself.

If we want science to effloresce, we need to have able students pursue knowledge with passion, not just for degree. We need that talent pool, not just skilled workers who earn their livelihood.

November 15, 2015

Is ignorance bliss? 

We hear it said, ‘Ignorance is bliss.’ The origin of this is from Thomas Gray who said actually, ‘Where Ignorance is bliss ‘Tis folly to be wise.’ The two statements are different. When I quoted this to a friend (from a book by Wood), he said, ‘I am not quoting anybody.’

That takes me to whether ignorance is bliss universally. That cannot be. We need knowledge even to get the basic necessities of life. But, all knowledge may not be helpful. It is basically a question, so it appears to me, of our ability to handle the knowledge. Children cannot understand the process of childbirth. So, we withhold that information until they can handle it. A patient may not be able to handle some adverse diagnosis, and it may be worthwhile not to share it with him.

Often, we go after silly knowledge that does nothing to add to wisdom.

In general, ignorance of that which makes us uncomfortable, and the lack of which is in no way material, gives bliss.

Ignorance of this post is an eminent example!

Knowledge: My musings from ignorance

Most of us are a library of opinions. We collect opinions of others, who in turn might have picked them up from some others. A book does not know what it contains. Carrying an opinion of another is not equivalent to knowledge. Knowledge is what we acquire from evidence and examination. At best we appreciate what another has done. But, it can be surface knowledge.

Everyone carried the knowledge of Newton, and no one really bothered to go beyond it until Einstein and a few others questioned and furthered the knowledge. It is doubtful how many follow Einstein, and even Newton. One may pass an exam, but that is no guarantee of knowledge.

It is with that shaky knowledge people put forth categorical opinions.

In a simple matter as mathematics, how much do we know numbers? Numbers are the most abstract, says V S Ramachandran, an eminent neuroscientist. One must read Russell to understand the conundrum numbers are. (I have not read him precisely for that purpose.) But, we think that assigning some numbers and applying some formula we solve all problems.

A knowledgeable one is one who knows from primary evidence and direct experience. Most of our knowledge is like the forwards in FB. 

*

It is a good beginning to know what we do not know. (That will be vast knowledge!)

It is a measure of confidence when one knows what one knows. (Rama, not given to boasting, asserts in a few places like to Kaikeyi who doubts whether he would obey his father’s word he says – ‘I am on par with Rishis’, and to Sugriva at the time of doubts expressed about admitting Vibhishana ‘No one can be as good a son as I am.’ I owe this to Sri Nochur Venkataraman).

But, the Upanishad stumps us: ‘He does not know who thinks that he does not know. He does not know who thinks that he knows. He only knows who thinks that neither he knows nor he does not know.’ I love this and do not desire to find its denouement from commentaries. 

*

We try to understand the world in certain set idioms, certain physical ideas that have come about by convention, common sense and consensus. We are too long entrenched in the ideas that something new has to be fitted into that paradigm to be valid and sensible. We are unable to break away and form a new framework. It requires a scientific mind to switch between frameworks that are arbitrary.

We learnt and it seemed to agree with observation that matter exists in three states – solid, liquid and gas. Ideas like supercooled liquid and plasma do not sink in as easily. We were told and we believed that electron can be a particle or a wave. But, then we are told that it chooses what it wants to be like a human being. Even that was understandable. But, quantum mechanics took the subject away from common understanding. Very few people understand QM and even among the scientific community there appear to be sceptics. Bohr said that if anyone says that he understands QM he does not know what he is talking about.

We try to understand the world (whatever it means) by some humanly conceived idea. We become regimented. We assert that the view of science is the only correct one and even make linear predictions, after accepting Darwin and mutation.

It is as well that we pause and examine how solid our understanding is and how much we are led by nose by history registered involuntarily in the brain. All our views are tentative and not tenable across contexts. 

We are led by our minds into what field we choose and acquire knowledge in that field. The knowledge becomes credible if we have been truthful in our search and focused on the subject. It may be vain to seek an all-encompassing knowledge (‘there is no theory of everything’).

There is no one truth that is intelligible as the same from any angle of looking at it. It may be there, and we may see the way we are led, and are precluded from seeing it ‘as it is.’ To believe that we will one day understand the way everything is in itself and in its inter-relationships with one another may be a wrong handle to it.

As we advance in our concepts, we must give it a reality check every now and then. How far does it fit into our experience? 

* 

Knowledge

June 09, 2015

Learning takes place at the biological level and at the voluntary level. At the biological level, it is designed by nature for self-preservation. At the voluntary level, there is one type of knowledge that bombards us when we expose ourselves. For example, I saw here that Lopez is likely to land in jail, something with which I may have nothing to do. Then, what knowledge would interest one? Is there a universal choice? There will be where our practice is born of ignorance and knowledge is likely to correct us sensibly. The problem arises when people prefer ignorance (maya?) and continue in their ways and even consider others misguided. This happens all the time to any of us. Many of our opinions are impressionistic and immune to any additional input. The world seems made that way. In any society, the learned were not immediately understood and were even tried for heresy. In politics, commerce and religion, the trading strength is ignorance. Nestle is putting out videos explaining how Maggi is what the doctor, if not God, ordered. The Church would not accept evolution. The politician has his day when there are people ammafying you. I have the advantage of being philosophical!

Is Harari too not telling a story?

Knowledge is skewed in distribution - both as regards availability and acceptance.

A trader in foreign exchange from FD told candidly to the customers in a seminar, 'We make money because of information gaps in the market. We make less, consciously.' That is the foundation of economics and exploitation – differential in knowledge. Will it stop? Yes, when knowledge is evenly spread – on the D day!

We assume that others know what we know (what we know may still be scratch). How many have read Harari? Even here among those that are intellectually forward, there is scant participation in knowledge subjects. CAA, RSS, howlers of the dynast, and political and faith issues invite wider participation. Someone who is a rabble rouser stirring up dormant issues becomes a hero. Politics, religion and business depend on passive and excitable followers. They know they have a free turf.

To expect that we can see a change in society because we know so much compared to, say, 500 years ago, and even appear to be on the cusp of a breakthrough in computing and biology, in atomic physics and outer space, is to forget that such knowledge is not the driving force of human action. 

In lighter vein

Ignorance is the basis of life. I would go so far as to say that it is the capital for the business of worldly human life. 

Science is not possible without ignorance and curiosity to overcome it. 

Religion is not possible without many people resigning to ignorance and accepting implicitly some messiah and his words. This is from serious writing: “The relationship with God, with the sacred and transcendent, is experientially real for those who live within a religious myth.”

In a seminar in the bank, the foreign exchange dealer said plainly that he makes money on the ignorance of the buyer or seller. I read an anecdote where a shrewd salesman sells a shawl with a price tag of Rs.300 for Rs.800 by cleverly changing the 3 to 8 on sensing that the buyer was a royal. It is only typical of commerce. 

Politics is a field which is fertile with lies and gullibility. 

Truth is such a commodity that its very existence is called in question. I read articles to the effect in AEON magazine.

I read a joke as a boy. Two ignoramuses were wonder strick as to how a mridangam made noise and decided that there must be a devil inside. They thought that they were clever and wanted to tear open the leather on either side, one from each side so that the devil would not escape. They executed the plan and caught the devil. They caught each other’s hand! Often we land in such a situation in search of truth. 

People long for ajnanam – which in the parlance of my mother tongue stands for love and affection! 

Science and technology

October 9, 2015 ·

Science is not the only or even the best form of knowledge. Nor is science valid independent of human mind. Nor is rationality a direct or distinct offshoot of science.

It is for fact that science has swept away in one fell swoop dogmatic beliefs and made it possible to review the ways we conceive the world and reconstruct the means of our passage in it. It has opened our minds to the vastness of the world away from the idea of an earth lit by a football-size sun and moon appearing in a blue sky dotted at night by myriads of stars; and a heaven ruled by god according to the norms set by human mind. It has led us into the secrets of the subatomic world. The journey is on.

While we should appreciate science, we should not be overawed by it. When we go to a gorgeous feast, we eat just a small share. So with life. We occupy a small part and live it for a short while. Our instincts and feelings guide us largely in what matters to life; science has changed it infinitesimally.

May 27, 2014 ·

SCIENCE (My musings)

Science is a systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. A scientific discovery is complete only if a well-constructed theory explains it and known facts and extrapolations based on the theory vindicate it. There is no place for speculation as proof. It is not inviolable; it is subject to modification based on better understanding as more facts unfold. This is as opposed to dogmas that ruled society earlier. It has become the trend to present science and religion as mutually contradictory because of the dogmatic nature of religion as beyond the scrutiny of human mind.

Science is as much from human mind as art, religion and so on. There is a belief that science has rational answers opposed to other fields of human achievement and excellence. It is held widely that reason guides science and that science is objective. As with most things, such thoughts cover part and not the whole truth.

First, reason is also a faculty of human mind. It is as human as emotion. It is not reasonable to posit that reason is the only way to know the truth. All one can say is truth cannot be opposed to reason and an overwhelming body of facts. What we need is more of a scientific temper and scientific method, not a blind belief in the discovery of science at a given point in time, which is as likely to be wrong as any belief based on partial evidence. To quote Maugham, though not in context, all a scientist would venture to assert is, ‘All we can be certain about is only that we cannot be certain about anything.’ It is not lack of confidence, or skepticism, but that the components of knowledge are infinite whereas the power of human comprehension is finite.

Science has busted many myths and superstitions. It has demolished accounts of creation of this world as wide of the mark. While doing so, it has shown what is most likely to be wrong and a little of what may be plausible. It has not substituted right answers for the wrong notions, but has thrown open the field of enquiry which remained closed. It has cleared the obstructions arising from faith for good for the most part. A price had to be paid along the way for this achievement.

There has been a tussle between certainty and chance and a myth came about that science is about certainty. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle put paid to it. The position of an electron is now a stochastic model i.e. one can only venture to predict the probability of its position. That is the ‘position’ of anything which is changing its position i.e. anything which we can observe with our senses.

There has been a search for a priori solutions to all enquiries. Deduction as opposed to induction is preferable. But, the march of science has only accentuated the divide and the proof by deduction has been elusive.

In accountancy, we talk of the limitations of financial statements, but we do not give up preparation or use of financial statements. The knowledge of limitations guides us to what precautions to take and what risk-mitigatory steps need be taken. Likewise, we have to bear in mind about the nature of scientific knowledge while using it. Otherwise, we will be losing the scientific temper and method.

February 10, 2014 ·

From The Story of Physics by Anne Rooney:

..light seems to know how to behave to experiments. When an experiment is designed to test the behaviour of light as a wave, light acts as a wave. When an experiment tests the behaviour of light as a particle, light behaves as a particle. It's not possible to catch it out. (..uhm, we know where sychophancy originated.)

'You never understand quantum Mechanics, you just get used to it.' (..like God perhaps).

..the very act of making a measurement changes the situation (or system) being examined. This casts doubt on the whole premise of scientific method. There can be no objective observer if the act of measurement or observation itself affects the outcome. (Cf. Goodhart's law : "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.")

(I am tempted to draw an analogy with advaita which negates the objective world).

February 03, 2016

The beauty of science

To many science has overcome barriers of knowledge and thrown light on the causes irrefutably. Reason is supreme and all else is make-believe. My understanding differs.

First, I do not believe that, even if it is true that reason has revealed the secrets of life (it is a big IF), reason alone does not enliven life. Often, reason plays no part at all in life.

Second, no scientist worth the salt has ever held out that science has found out everything or that in the near future man will be the master of all that he surveys.

As to explaining ‘why’, listen to this candid talk by Feynman, a brilliant teacher:

http://www.physics-astronomy.com/…/richard-feynman-is-asked…

Knowledge expands exponentially that no single mind, howsoever brilliant, is able to cope with even a part of it. Says Russell, “ .. the synthesis that depends on coexistence of multifarious knowledge in a single mind becomes increasingly difficult.” The same idea is differently phrased by Poincare, “The scientist's brain, which is only a corner of the universe, will never be able to contain the whole universe;”

That said, the part of science must be acknowledged as the greatest work of human mind. The idea I like to emphasise is that the direction of science is not towards dogmatic certainty or any assertion as to what the meaning of life could be, which is a human issue and has nothing to do in the objective analysis of world of matter, particles, waves, forces, and the like.

The greatest contribution of science is not the wonderful gadgets we play around with (like say the internet that makes it possible for me to post my views for the perusal of a handful), but making us think, question and understand. Religion claimed to have done the thinking for all posterity and pushed down the throat ideas that are not tenable, and put a lid on thinking, forbidding eating the fruit of tree of knowledge. In the words of Poincare, “The thinkers in the past were of the belief that they have done all the thinking and there was nothing for future men to do.” Science has lifted the lid.

What does science aim at? To quote Russell again, “.. it is not results, which are what mainly interests the man in the street, that are what is essential in a science: what is essential is its method,” Is it better to be contented with, ‘we can never know’? That is not in the spirit of science. Russell clarifies that the scientist contends with “ .. the active, eager doubt that inspires a new scrutiny, not the idle doubt that acquiesces contentedly in nescience-“

Well, where will it lead us? One cannot be sure, but Russell’s take is, “..in virtue of the very rapidity of our progress, a new theory of knowledge has to be sought, more tentative and more modest than that of more confident but less successful generations.” The path may be towards tentative and probabilistic theories (like that suggested by the uncertainty principle or theory of relativity). It must be an exciting path and those who venture out must find it fulfilling.

Science likes precision. There is no space for poetic hyperbole in it. Our thinking has to conform to what is relatable to observable and testable phenomena, not wild imagination or sterile speculation.

Let us understand that science is about its method. In its spirit, let us be precise whenever we quote from it.

22/2/2018

Science

We are overawed by science and assume that we can lead a life based on the findings of science. There is a catch. Life is dependent on reason in a very limited way. Not that life is unreasonable or that science is away from life. We live life by instinct honed over a very long time and it is true for a scientist as for any life. Science has certainly helped us understand a lot and added to our comfort and variety. Science is also a source of joy to minds that want to know compulsively. But like all fields of knowledge that is humanly conceived, science is only a way of looking at reality, not vital or conclusive.

December 13, 2015

Technology

It is a mantra, which will facilitate development and deliver humanity into El Dorado. Look at the world of today and compare it with what it was even half a century ago. We travel fast, see distant things instantly from living, eating or sleeping room, talk to one another at every impulse from one end of the world to another, record and archive events for living it at leisure, can use drones to kill unwanted elements, and the wonders are endless. We are into creating virtual worlds where our fancies will have full play unlike in the god-given world. What a poor technician god must be! Why can’t he borrow ideas from man and create a better world where mind decides the outer world?

Old-fashioned Gandhi pleaded for a bullock cart world and Schumacher had the temerity to take a cue and argue small is beautiful. What luddites! See how we mass produce, increase consumer satisfaction and create jobs. What will small do in this modern world? Thank heavens no one ever took them seriously.

Is it true technology will solve the social problems and remove suffering? What type of technology?

The most important achievement in technology is speed. But speed has created many problems. The pace of organic life, of which human life is just a part, is self-regulated and is not suited to cope with the pace man has actualized. The many lifestyle diseases are a result of such unnatural pace. We hurry for no purpose and at a cost to our well-being.

The consumption boom that has resulted from technology advancement has entailed pollution, undisposable waste and harm to health. The pollution that was there before industrialisation was biodegradable and far less harmful.

The source of much of technology is from resources that deplete at a faster pace than the rate at which they are replenished. This could lead us to total breakdown unless hopefully we find a safe and sustainable technology. As things stand it may be a Micawberish hope.

When the wheel was invented, the first revolution was made. It was a silent, non-polluting technology. At that time, it was still biological energy that moved it. It did not cause much displacement or cause redundancy. What the world would have done wisely with is perhaps such innovation that does not engender upheaval, enlarge greed or make size matter.

The man-made technology is antagonistic to the plan of nature. An intelligent mind may not be behind nature, but nature rolls on patiently and produces variety and sustainable life and pace. There is a total scheme, whereas man attempts tinkering, without a clue to the impact it has on the whole. It is somewhat like modern medicine that treats different parts in isolation, or piecemeal criticism that is shallow and does not offer a holistic alternative. (This very piece is an example).

I have to end on a dismal note. As much as we complain of weather, there is as yet no total solution to making it serve our comfort. Much as we may read and peeve about the excesses of medicine, we have to rush to the doctor and run around the hospitals. Technology as deified today may lead us to a less safe world, but we are in it inextricably and will find company with each other in its journey enjoying the fruits that we admire and are addicted to.

September 19, 2015

Science and life

Science has introduced the idea of proof and is struggling. Anything worthwhile for life need not be proved. All that is needed is knowledge. Knowledge does not require proof, but ability to know (intelligence) and evidence (testimonial and experiential).

The purpose of science (and technology) is to analyse and go deep to the root of everything so that by knowing the make-up and structure or method of formation, we can reconstruct or arrive at a more elegant and useful structure (product, process). The progress of life is not touched by science, only the mode of its passage.

November 11, 2014

Science/Ethics/Objectivity

Science is 'objective' pursuit of knowledge by human mind. Ethics is an arbitrary code of conduct for human beings. Science is not the way to understand many things which impact life intimately. Science can never solve the ills and strife that result from human minds. You need an anchor for it, in one way or another. That cannot be provided by science. When we are into science, ethics has to be kept aside. When we try to put into use the products of science (nuclear energy), we need to bring in ethics. Science cannot be the guide on how we want to use science.

All knowledge we have is from human mind. There is no way we can have knowledge outside of human mind. Human mind carries subconsciously at least the impressions implanted in it willy-nilly. That a large number of sane people agree on a thing means nothing more than that the impressions are congruent. What we discuss is setting aside personal preferences or dogmas while exploring knowledge. It is still knowledge of human mind that has accepted certain impressions and invalidated others. This process of selectivity is not objective. Great minds differ on basic tenets, the minds are great because they want truth of whatever hue, but still they differ. The quest is on and we bring more facts and theories on the table. The process seems to be endless. Objectivity and rationalism are snapshots at the given point in time. Rationalism is as much a belief system.

August 13, 2014

Science is about observable things, spirituality is about the unseen. Science is analytical, spirituality is synthetic. Science is about parts, spirituality is about whole. The whole is not the sum of parts, like water is not just two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms. The two will march parallel, science cannot deduce or disprove spiritual experience. We will see striking similarity, because we are trying to understand the same reality; and the best brains have been at work in both. But, we should not veer to the view ever that some scientific method can vindicate spiritual experience.

October 25, 2015

E= mc^2

When I was in Physical Chemistry class (1966), I asked what then appeared a naïve question, ‘What is the formula for atom bomb?’ Mr. Simon, the lecturer, went to the blackboard and wrote E= mc2 and looked triumphant. I knew that equation and wondered how an atom bomb could be made just from that equation. However, I did not want to appear more silly asking any further question. Now in Einstein’s biography, I read how Einstein pooh-poohed the idea in the beginning that it might be possible to unlock energy from mass. It involved many brains and experiments before an atom bomb would be made and its efficacy tested on the hapless Japanese.

September 11, 2014

Science

"What can be proved can be disproved..All our proof is in a conditioned world. If all conditions are removed, what remains? See carefully..a theorem proceeds from what is given. There is no proof without that. In other words we make assumptions. How valid are those assumptions? There is no proof for that. If you see carefully, physics is also the same. The universal constants hold in the universe we know of (or assume so). Science does not say that another universe may not exist where there may be different conditions where the constants are wobbly. If there is one thing Einstein's deduction points to, it is this: as we take more and more classes of facts into account and enlarge the generality (newton's laws are valid under more conditions), the fundamental truths shift subtly, which will not be apparent in normal experience. This is a call for caution, not a licence to predict bizarre things. For example, it does not prove, heaven, hell or soul.

"There are more things in the skies and earth, Scientist, Than are dreamt of in your science." That is Shakespeare distorted.

Let us make our experience, including what we have learnt, be our guide. Let us share that experience and sift disinterestedly. Actually, we have preconceived ideas, that there is soul or no soul, and make statements, the validity of which lacks conviction. The truth of the soul is not a matter of ordinary experience. There is nothing like we can file a habeas corpus petition about soul imprisoned in the body."

Afterwards I read Hermann Hesse write: "..the opposite of every truth is as true."

Scientism

This word was thrown at me when I wrote in a correspondence that Hinduism as it obtains today is quite different from Vedic religion. I did not quite bother to check on its meaning as a word is not an argument. People normally reply with such words as reactionary, obscurantist, etc. The description may be correct but some substantial point must follow or precede it. The judgmental comment is not enough to repudiate a point.

Coming across the word recently in a self-description, I sat up and looked for the meaning. I found this:

“Scientism (Noun RARE): thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists; excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values." Wikipedia.

Interestingly, FB does not recognize the word.

I too think that science is only one way of acquiring knowledge and not the only way. There are areas like art, literature, love, etc. where science has minimal role to play. Moreover science is from the same human mind from which so many other ideas have come and made up life (not just biological living) as we live today.

But, we have to distinguish between areas where science may not help (soul and god, e.g.) and those where science has a crucial role to play. In areas where science can lead us to precise knowledge, it is vain to seek other methods like mysticism and scripture. If someone describes scientific approach in such instances as ‘scientism’, he is to be left to his illusions.

Infinity

There can be infinite discussion on this.

Is infinite finite or vague?

When a professor said that ‘infinity’ is relative, that seemed to contradict my understanding, but that was not critical to the idea he was setting out.

My daughter raised the doubt: ‘Does this explanation of infinity make sense to you?’, which is a euphemistic version of ‘What the professor says is nonsense.’

Independent of the above, prior to it, I raised the subject with two friends and their response:

RM:

“It is a nice parable. But it is not mathematics. In Bertrand Russell’s book,  ‘Principia Mathematica’, he discusses different infinities, each bigger than the one before. Aleph null is the infinity of all numbers, rational, irrational, etc...

Aleph 1 is the infinity of all geometrical figures regular and irregular and curves and squiggles (description mine, I don’t remember the original definition).

Aleph 2.........................

George Gamov explains infinity with the following story? Question: There is a hotel with an infinite number of rooms with infinite guests occupying the rooms. Another infinite guests arrive. How does the hotelier accommodate them? He vacates the guests from all the even numbered rooms and move them to odd numbered rooms which have to be available in a hotel with infinite number of rooms. The new infinite guests are accommodated in the even numbered rooms.          Zero works with three operators, +, -, and x, but not when it is division. Is it then a number that cannot perform one of the four arithmetical operations or is it not a part of the number continuum?    There is a definite difference between something small, minuscule, and something that is nonexistent. Physics has been upended by Quantum theory. But so far Mathematics stands its ground. But, who knows the professor may prove to be right.”

MA:

“Infinity appears to be relative, since, it can also be conceived in other terms than numbers.

Zero seems to be a null condition in all theatres.”

He recommends that I read this book:

https://henry.pha.jhu.edu/Eddington.2008.pdf

I in turn recommend it to others!

Both zero and infinity are a difficult concept to understand. Physically we know nothing that corresponds to them. We are not far better than the shepherd. And, believe me, mathematics does not really map the real world accurately. I say this on the authority of Hume and Russell.

Infinity is not ‘finite’ after all!

There is a difference between scientists and psudo-scientists.

Science deals with objects which have no mind as far as we know. They behave predictably, non-idiosyncratically. Thus we have laws of science that seem inexorable in a given framework.

Where human minds are at play and influence outcome, we are on shifting grounds or quicksand. That is the case with economics, stock prices, etc. Astrology is not a science, and even statistically, astrological predictions are unreliable because of human choice and decision, apart from the assumed role of planets on our lives. Psychology, though a science in its own right, is less certain because it deals with mind as its subject.

Even science becomes wobbly when observation is involved like in Q.M. The Q.M. theory veers to the view that the observer affects the outcome.

If we appreciate this basic difference, we will not put the economists on a pedestal even if some of their predictions became stunning reality, nor would we blame them when they goof up. We should not give them more attention than to the TV news and debate, esp. in Arnab show.

The subatomic particles behave in a way different from their aggregates. They are whimsical in a manner of speaking. You may say loosely that they have free will. We cannot fix them in a way they will obey our instructions like macro-level things appear to do, or we assume so.

The macro-level things follow the laws of classical physics which Schrodinger calls statistical.

It looks to me that the behaviour of an individual and a group will always be at variance. That is what we observe among human beings or animals or birds.

Why do we expect that we will find one day some laws which will make the behaviour of the two to be dovetailed into them?

Science - 1

Reason is always on the agenda whenever we discuss. It is a question of understanding what reason is and what its reach is, how much we really use 'reason' for basic life. Is reason within consciousness or beyond? If it is subject to consciousness, how do we place reliance on it if we do not know what consciousness is? If it is above consciousness with what faculty do we appreciate it? It is getting metaphysical. Higher science, esp. theoretical physics is reduced to metaphysics, speculation. I have no answer to any question. I am trying to find out whether i am asking right or useful questions. (VSR says that we must not waste our time on intellectually seductive questions, answers to which may lead us nowhere.” However, as i am not in serious pursuit, I am ignoring his advice!)

Reason is rarely a reason for finding something new. Much of it happens serendipitously. Kekule got a brainwave for the structure of benzene, and so on. We cannot believe in something like religion would bid us do. That is not the point I am making. We must make a genuine attempt to know, reason always being on our side even if unknown. When Mendeleev left a blank in the periodic table, he did it right on some intuition. He did not know that atomic number and not atomic weight was the fundamental property of an atom. There was a reason, but he did not know.

Consciousness is the basic thing to know, if we can. Understanding must be our goal whatever may be the route. One may be thoroughly logical without making any sense. (Possibly you may have a chuckle if there is logic here).

I am right now speculating that our understanding is defined by our consciousness, the way it has evolved and been fed on. A new understanding is a new dimension to the consciousness. What we knew earlier fitted squarely into our consciousness then. Likewise, something newer would make our understanding today silly. That applies to an individual and the humanity collectively. When there is a choice and ambivalent evidence, it becomes political as to what one chooses. If I choose steady state theory over string theory, I do it on some belief, not conviction. Conviction cannot come without examining the evidence, which many of us have not. We only read opinions of others and sway one way or another. That is not reason really. If I cannot test the validity of an opinion from primary evidence, I cannot claim that I am acting on reason.

Science – 2

Science: Is it the new religion?

Religion held sway for a long time and in fact does even now over vast sections of humanity. Its first serious challenge came perhaps from Karl Marx. Communism attracted a large number of people next to religion and became a quasi-religion. It became a more sombre, totalitarian, authoritarian and oppressive regime outdoing early religion.

Now, when I look at where science seems heading, I wonder whether science has become the new religion.

Reason is the altar in which everything must be sanctified. Human life depends less on reason than on values which reason and science cannot father.

One of the charms of religion was promise of immortality. People tried in various ways to make their earthly presence permanent, but none succeeded. Religion invented a lie that there would be a day of reckoning or some such thing when individuals would regain their identity in a deathless and painless life for the small fee of worship of a god. Now, I read scientists holding out hope that soon in a couple of generations, death would be a thing of the past.

(https://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/30425/death-will-be-optional-and-ageing-curable-by-2045-say-genetic-engineers)

People believe it also, though they do not understand what is being talked about. That is the crux and bane of religion, blind belief which now extends to matters of science. A scientist says and so it must be true; the scientists have taken over from the prophets and priests.

The human tendency is to clutch at any straw and believe.

Evolution is an idea. Heaven is an idea.

Some ideas represent a ‘physical’ reality. ‘Physical’ does not mean ‘tangible’. Pain is ‘real physically’ but cannot be sensed by others in any way. It is the inalienable private property of the sufferer, forget mythological stories. One may argue that evolution is about physical reality while heaven is not.

Now, evolution and heaven are proposed based on some indications. It is in our bias that evolution is scientific and heaven is imaginary. But, how far are we grasping the scientific basis of evolution? Honestly, it is our belief that it is scientific. Do not get me wrong. I am not questioning evolution or supporting the existence of heaven. I am not that blissful. I am simply saying that in either case we are acting on belief impelled by either the result or the weight of ‘learned’ opinion. We become scientific only when we are able to appreciate the reasoning from primary evidence. In matters like relativity, QM, evolution, it is beyond the ken of ordinary people; degrees appended to one’s name do not make one extraordinary.

The idea of evolution has undergone many changes since Darwin. For a starter, read this article captioned, ‘Mutation, Not Natural Selection, Drives Evolution.’

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/mutation-not-natural-selection-drives-evolution?utm_source=dscfb&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dscfb&fbclid=IwAR0TXAxPD8m0nK4DsR3l5A3u-AdViConLDlNZl8pYNfncWx_DngHP47eDCU

19.9.99

I discredit evolution, of course, without claims to any proof for it. I can accept evolution only in the sense of gradation. The worldview either through religion or science as reduced to writing can only be a contradiction in terms. A day may come when evolution may be proved to be wrong. Our worldview is dependent not on the so-called objective world whose existence beyond our cognisance is impossible to detect but on our feeling. It is possible to rid our mind process of contaminations and arrive at a pure mind state from when we can feel and be aware of the tenable worldview. 

Equality of gender:

Without doubt, universally across all societies, male dominated and set limits to what a woman can aspire to. It is the pet belief of some that ancient Hindu society stood apart, judging from the concept of a female god that symbolized power and some female protagonists in Vedanta. That is not true anyway as the role of woman in society is what counts and a woman did not have the same status as a man. Education was shut to women and as early as the days of the dramatists like Bhasa (pre-Christian), the dialect used for female characters is Prakritam while men will have dialogues in Samskritam.
The idea that two things are not equal introduces the idea that one must be superior to another. But, it may be fallacious.
Functionally at least in biology the two genders have complementary roles and the roles carry certain physical features in-built that differentiate the genders. That is the work of nature and nature cannot be held to have had a positive or negative bias in so evolving their roles and features.
Apart from biological uniqueness, certain characteristics and hence corresponding abilities also differ. Ideally, the roles of man and woman should be so devised as to harness their different abilities optimally. But, as male dominated society has shown, vested interests disable efficient distribution of resources.
The popular belief that a female is weaker is overdone. Females live longer and are generally the stronger. Strength does not mean capacity to overpower physically.
Equality is catchy, but a hollow goal. Suppression must go, but at no time the two genders can become equal in the world that we experience.

January 11, 2017
I came upon this since writing on gender equality:
"There were no unhealthy restrictions upon Hindu women in those days, no rules to keep them secluded or debarred from their legitimate place in society. A girl generally selected her own husband, but her parents' wishes were for the most part respected. We have frequent allusions to careful and industrious wives who superintended the arrangements of the house, and, like the dawn, roused every one in the morning and sent him to his work. Girls who remained unmarried obtained a share in the paternal property. Widows could re-marry after the death of their husbands."
Ancient India by Romesh Chunder Dutt


In response to a question, Cho answers, “What right has been denied to women? It is talk from the dais, to showcase that the speaker only is broadminded. I do not think any right has been denied to women.”
Truth is not firmly behind Cho.


Further thoughts:
Why only in music, in sports also there is gender difference officially. We cannot have a man vs woman tennis match. It will be uneven. We have separate cricket matches for men and women and other sports.
In manual work also, a man gets paid more.
How far is gender important in music? I do not know, but I feel that there is marked difference and that it will not go away over time in the ordinary course. That does not mean that one is better than the other. As I said I like female voices more than male voices. Connoisseurs must be able to choose irrespective of gender based on the quality of music offered.

Bhavan’s Journal Aug 15 (Women’s issue)
“The point is why should a woman be like a man? Why not enjoy being a woman, right from dressing up colourfully, in feminine albeit complicated clothes, and keep our emotions transparent?
That’s the way we are wired – blame it on biology or on genetic imprinting for aeons! Why compete with men? Our world is so beautiful, with all the sensitivity, warmth, and comfort we bring into lives of others. True, life cannot be looked at in such simplistic fashion; but why fight being essentially feminine? Let’s not be a complement, supplement, or even an equal to men.
After all, aren’t some more equal than others?”
Jyoti Raghuram, Asst. Editor.me a wreck as the stress stories of today indicate.
7/5/18

Woman in society

Man vs Woman has been an on-going issue, as an undercurrent if not as a headline.
I recall Kalyanasundaranar making a pious poetic line ‘மாதராகப் பிறந்திடவே மாதவம் செய்திட வேண்டுமம்மா’ (To be born as a woman one must have done great penance). The fact is he had to say it since that was not in the ethos of the society. The saying ‘यत्र नार्यस्तु पूज्यन्ते रमन्ते तत्र देवता:। (Where ladies are honoured, there devas are pleased)’ also is a platitude.
Woman has been treated with condescension by the man-organised society. She is said to be the ‘fair sex’, but man is not called ‘unfair sex’ as far as I know! She is the weaker sex, but man is not the stronger sex! She becomes a ‘better half’, but man is not described as ‘worse half’ though the jokes seem to suggest so!

What is womanhood? In Tamizh, we have four qualities that define a woman. அச்சம் (Fear), நாணம் (Coyness), மடைமை (Foolishness literally; Not volunteering to speak in an assembly), பயிர்ப்பு (Shrinking from what is mean or vile).
(There are four qualities for man: அறிவு knowledge, நிறை good conduct, ஓர்ப்பு good judgment, கடைப்பிடி following what one has learnt as good).
Look at the greed of man as to what he expects a wife to be:
कार्येषु दासी करणेषु मन्त्री भोज्येषु माता शयनेषु रम्भा ।
धर्मानुकूला क्षमया धरित्री भार्या च षाड्गुण्यवतीह दुर्लभा ॥
1) Slave for work; 2) Counsellor in action; 3) Mother in feeding;
4) Ramba in bed; 5) Lakshmi in looks; 6 Earth in patience
It also says it is difficult to find one like that. Naturally.

A woman becomes exalted as a mother. A woman as a mother is a different person altogether. Nature has made her a loving custodian of the progeny. It is as though the progeny are a projection of her. Her love to them flows from infancy and that is what binds a family and even humanity. It is common with other species, but its longevity like human longevity is more. I would go to the extent of saying that a woman who does not want to become a mother is unnatural.

Structure

STRUCTURE

Structure relates to an arrangement in accordance with set parameters. It puts into order what appears at random. The sanctity for a structure comes from its utility and ease of understanding or transaction. It is a response to a need of a development that is natural. For example, grammar is a structure abstracted from usage. Grammar codifies usage and has no relevance isolated from usage. Usage dictates grammar and not the other way around. A person who emphasises a structure on its own merit is dubbed a stickler or a pedant.

Structure has been useful for progress and organization of society and propagation and advancement of knowledge. Structure by itself does not promote the content. For example, a school is a structure, with classes as sub-structures. But, a school attains sanctity from teachers and students. There have been some who disliked the idea of school. In India, still a large number do not go to school, but it is from a cultural lag and economic unaffordability. The few like Tagore have been wizards and creative geniuses, but that is a rarity. Schools have not been shut because a great artist could grow without it. This truism is not evident in some walks.

Almost everything in our life follows a structure. We have an internal structure that is organically formed. We have unravelled a good deal of it, but mysteries remain, the disconcerting example being cancer. The order we have evolved is an extension of the order we have observed.

Just like physical structures, we have mental structures. We behave, think and operate from those structures. The structures of all individuals are not congruous, except to the extent of shared evolutionary traits, and sometimes shared social beliefs buttressed by examples that are specific to certain cultures. Now, in this light an objective view is a Utopian objective. We can delayer, but I suspect some unknown layer forms in the space created as ‘nature abhors vacuum’. For all practical purposes, we do not have the capacity to dismantle the structures in our minds; the mind (compared to a monkey) hops from one position (branch) to another. That is why rationalism is also a belief in a structure based on reason (many rationalists are very inconsistent even in terms of reason, rare indeed is a rationalist like Russell) and reason is by no means all settled and a sure guide to understanding. Scientists do make guesses transcending reason and are vindicated; a new theory is born; and it goes on like that.

The point I am labouring at is that structure facilitates organized life (thinking), but is a limitation in understanding as the structure shuts vistas outside it. While we should strive for knowledge keeping aside interferences, we must constantly question the conclusions raking up the basics from which they were arrived at.

It is not that clarity would be elusive, but that certainty would be illusive.