The Truth of a Blip
Back to India.
Everyone stares.
I can feel all the stares from the corner of my eye. Not all are looks of lechers. Some are just mute blank stares. They seem to be supported by no thought. Why do they stare at me?
Because I am tall?
Because I didnt care to brush my hair?
Because I walk with no shield, no insecurity?
Because I walk with my chin up?
I had learnt, like very Indian girl, to completely ignore the fact that I have lateral vision. But I wasn’t trained well enough at all. A stint in Canada, a brief one, and back in India, I can notice the irregularities. Its transparent. And unusual.
Anyway, the fact that you referred to Nietzsche made me pick up a book of his - Beyond Good and Evil, from the book case. Earlier, I didn’t like philosophers and kept away as I knew its dangerous stuff. It can drive you mad. Nietzsche did go mad in 1889, died in 1890. As my Mom, who simplifies everything and makes life good and manageable said, We are all just ‘blips’, might as well be a happy blip.
But for the first time in life, I, an atheist, a fiercely REAL person, anti-flounce, anti pseudo-intellectualism, anti-phony trips of imagination, not favourable to ventures of weak fanciful minds, anti purple prose, I for the first time explored spirituality with you. It was easy as we did not use the tag ’spirituality’. The end of the discussion did not leave me happier or sadder, more satisfied or less, but it was a good trip, without drugs. Therefore, a ‘real’ float, a real trip.
So here I am with Nietzsche, ready to read ‘Beyond Good and Evil.’ Its an interesting title. As an exchange student, I lived for 4 months far removed from societal views. I was an alien. When you do not hear collective thoughts, the terms ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ dissolve. There is only Human. Let me not go into this though.
I began to read the book and a paragraph later, I thought I would pen down some of what I read that connected to you. The following is co-authored by Nietzsche (1844-90) and me (1985 - ?)
Dear Renzo,
You have a will to find the truth. The ‘will to truth’ tempts us to many a hazardous enterprise.
We speak of this will to truth, a philosophical tendency with reverence. It makes us question everything, mainly the whole point of existing. We ask ‘What is the truth?’ But this leads to another fundamental question. Why do we wish to know the truth? What is the value of the will to truth? Why not rather untruth? And uncertainty. Even ignorance? - You said once. I may live happily as a happy ignorant person. Why am I plagued with indefinite questions about my life.
Isn’t it paradoxical to wish that I were a part of the truth by being part of deception? For example, if I were meant to exist as a part of nature as an ignorant human being, living in the reality of my perceptions, isn’t it funny to want to be like that and be like that just so that I fit in the scheme of existence and be part of the truth. To live in deception and therefore live in truth.
What an anti-thesis.
Nietzsche says, How could something originate in its anti-thesis? Will to truth in will to deception, for example? Or the unselfish act of self-interest? (Capitalism for instance. If everyone takes care of themselves, the world will take care of itself. Looking for the good of all people if every man is selfish.)
Or the pure radiant gaze of the sage in covetousness?
According to N, such origination in anti-thesis is impossible; he who dreams of it is a fool, indeed worse than a fool. The things of the highest value must have another origin of their own — they cannot be derivable from this transitory, seductive, deceptive, mean little world, from this confusion of desire and illusion.
N says, to discover the ‘truth’ or the origin of it new philosophers, independent of our tastes and interests are needed. At this point it seems that N is convinced that there really is some ‘truth’or maybe he is hot in pursuit of the ‘truth’, eager to finish the chase and discover for sure if there is a ‘truth’ to look for or there isn’t.
‘Being Conscious’ and in touch with truth is not alienated from being instinctive and human. Logic is not completely autonomous and free-standing. For example, that the definite shall be of greater value than the indefinite, or the ‘truth’ shall be greater than appearance, these ideas born of faith in logic and definiteness seem to be arbitrary given your argument of perspectives and perceptions. Because of our perception-based reality, the way to grasp truth is a way that is dependent on our own abilities, making ‘truth’ a dependent variable. It even makes the value of ‘truth’ questionable. Doesn’t it? How important can such an unreachable, flexible, dependent state be? ‘Truth’ seems to be unself-respecting. But what a ‘blip’ I feel like without ‘truth’. I can make up ‘truths’ and settle on the best one. But again, it raises the Q of deception as truth. And I get back to my will for truth. Might as well leave the mess but then you know how the Q hovers around in life.
N says false judgements are the most indispensable to us. We need something uncertain or conventionally wrong to compare life with. Without measuring reality against the purely invented world of the unconditional and self-identical, without a continual falsification of the world, mankind cannot live — that to renounce false judgement would be renounce life. To recognise untruth as a condition of life, that, to be sure means to resist customary value-sentiments in a dangerous fashion; and a philosophy which ventures to do so places itself, by that act alone, beyond good and evil.
To test life and to see if I am living close to the truth, I create an identical world with an identical life. Maybe this is the world I look at when I view my life and actions as a third person or an outsider would. This identical life has no conditions, presets, boundaries, morality or good judgement. In this world, I don’t keep quiet about uncomfortable topics and I do not respect hierarchy. I do not fake emotions as I am not scared of being called cold and heartless. Nothing fits. Everything just is. It goes wherever it does. Into pits or flows like a river. I am not being ‘good’ or ‘evil’. I am not just ‘true’ but take many false steps, just for testing perhaps. Emotions are real. Actions are not driven by emotions though. All kinds of steps are taken, ungoverned by the good or evil in them.
What makes us mistrustful of philosophers and makes us mock them is how innocent they are and how they go astray. They make a mighty, virtuous noise as soon as it seems they are close to truth. They pose as having used pure, cold logic and honesty to reach the truth, when suddenly, in an unguarded moment, it is revealed how childish they are. Their answers are opinions. The ‘truth’ they speak of is just a prejudice or a notion.
How scared I am of straying too far and getting immersed in pure nonsense. I have tethered myself to a point and retrace my steps to that point if I feel I am going in the wrong direction. I venture out farther to give very direction a fair chance. How cold and logical I sound and I try to be as I discuss and write this piece on truth and philosophy. But its an earnest attempt. I am giving it a fair chance before I laugh at myself.
Getting defensive, am I?
You say to me with calm and peace - ” Don’t get defensive. You have nothing to fight. It’s me.”
*************************************************
More later. Maybe…