When I think to write for somebody I no longer remain truthful to the subject I am thinking about. Attentive writing is the most inattentive activity whereas the presence of "me" doesn't affect the flow of sentences or the river of discourses. The structure of discourse takes a direction of its own when the presence of 'I' or 'me' is not felt. When Jacques Derrida was writing Of Grammatology, he felt a power leading the book he was unaware of. Instead of influencing the book, he was flowing like river along with the book, which shaped his consciousness and remained with him a paradigm for his whole journey of intellectual life. Written piece is free from writer, it is always already in interpretation and interpreted again and again with infinite progression or regression. But it is mistake to think that writer knows the objective truth of text. Writer is as much confused about his writing than any other reader. With a conjecture in impression writer tries to paint a picture. But picture itself is an independent object. In fact, a writer, artist, or painter is a total sum of his or her works.
The presence of "me" is the beginning of conflict and chaos between thinker and thought. As long as thinker is conscious about thinking, thoughts are merely a accumulated substance, claimed J. Krishnamurti, which has come through generation after generation in evolutionary process, which is taken to be true without questioning the essence of its existence. "Me" is accepted as real presence which is involved as an actor in every activity. The unquestioned "me" is narcissistically present in every thought and distorts the truth in every possible way. "Me" is taken for granted in such a way that it functions like self-serving or self-pleasing activity. "Me" is no other thing than a concept, an image society has projected since the beginning of human's life. "Me" is a cultural artefact, an introjected image, a total sum of society, which speaks on behalf of all; it represents the malady of psychosis and neurosis generated by circular herd voices, remains attached to name, fame, position, and wealth, and wants salvation in outward things. But somehow inner-consciousness remains impoverished and unfree.
Freedom in modern society is conceived as freedom of choice, but is there a freedom when human's mind is entangled in a cybernetics of choices and options? In such a conflicting state how can one feel the freedom? Can one realize the freedom as long as society is speaking behind every word and concept one is imagining and expressing? The answer is obviously "no". To change the consciousness of human being is far more radical task than a revolution one talks about to bring outwardly. Justice in distribution of goods and resources is not a solution to every problem humankind is suffering from unless psychological freedom is achieved or rather spiritual freedom is realized. Spirituality is not a commercial thing to be sold like yoga. Real Yoga is to live a life of compassion and empathy or an "un-alienated life". Its about living effortlessly with harmony inwardly and outwardly what Lao Tzu demonstrated through his life. As long as one is suffering from inward poverty, real freedom is a dream or a fantasy, which is too far to be fathomed about and realized in its essence.
Comments
Post a Comment