Remembering Jagjit Singh and ghazals

August 17, 2024

Back in the 1970s a Sikh friend introduced me to Jagjit Singh and how he had reinvented and rejuvenated ghazals. Through the 1980s I listened often to Jagjit and Chitra Singh. But for some reason I have hardly listened to any of their music for the last 20 years.

Wikipedia:

Jagjit Singh (born Jagmohan Singh Dhiman; 8 February 1941 – 10 October 2011) was an Indian composer, singer and musician. He composed and sang in numerous languages and is credited for the revival and popularity of ghazal, an Indian classical art form, by choosing poetry that was relevant to the masses and composing them in a way that laid more emphasis on the meaning of words and melody evoked by them.

I accidently came across some of his BBC recordings about 2 years ago. With much delight I have been rediscovering and remembering much of his work – or at least that part which is available on the internet. Chitra – who is Bengali – had a remarkable clarity of voice even when singing in Hindi or Punjabi. She stopped singing in 1990 when their son was killed in an accident. Jagjit Singh died in 2011 but he reinvented the ghazals tradition.

This particular recording from 1979 by the BBC in Birmingham is of the form of a Punjabi tappe which is to be heard at every Punjabi wedding. (Punjabi tappe in folk tradition generally have 1 or 3 lines in rhyme and all have the same melody. Commonly used during Punjabi weddings).

Tags:
Posted in India, Music | Comments Off on Remembering Jagjit Singh and ghazals

Natural Law is neither natural nor is it law

August 12, 2024

The laws of nature do not allow any non-compliance. Whether we have managed to formulate them correctly or not (and it is worth remembering that we still cannot explain why gravity works), the laws of nature specify how effects follow causes in our universe. Inexorable, unavoidable, unchangeable. The laws of nature are indifferent to the state of the universe.

Natural Law, however, is neither natural nor a law. It is not a real thing. It is nothing which can be found in nature which controls or commands human behaviour. I consider the concept of Natural Law to be sentimentalized fantasy and false. Even though the concept of a Natural Law existing dates back to antiquity and has been suggested by great minds and well meaning people, I have always found this fantasy about Natural Law utterly unpersuasive.

History of Natural Law

Many consider Aristotle to be the father of Natural Law Theory. He argued that what is “just by nature” is not always the same as what is “just by law,” as it does not depend on the decisions or laws of any one group of people, such as lawmakers. Following this, Cicero explained Natural Law as something that can contribute to the general good of society, whereas positive law would contribute to the safety of society. Many contributions continued to be made to Natural Law Theory, such as during the Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment, which led to the creation of more modern Natural Law theories that combined Natural Law with other philosophical theories, …….. In more modern times, Natural Law was also supported by great thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

A current definition of Natural Law would be:

Natural law is a philosophical concept that posits that there are inherent laws, principles, or moral codes that are part of the natural order of the world and are accessible to human reason.

I find it does not have the status of a theory. In fact it could hardly even be called a hypothesis. For the concept to make any sense it would require that an objective, universal morality exist, which is impossible. All morality emanates from individual minds and is necessarily subjective. Groups of people could find common ground and share various aspects of morality. But there is no such thing as an objective, universal morality. There is no morality to be found in the natural world. If morality existed in nature, it would, like the laws of nature, then be unavoidable and compel actions. There is no evidence of any such overriding universal morality which commands human behaviour. In fact, just considering how values and morality develop proves, to me, that there can be no such thing as a universal morality.

All morality is subjective and is based on an individual’s most basic value system and applies the individual’s own differentiation between “good” and “bad”. Everything about morality starts from there. This morality does not – as the politically correct claim – establish the intrinsic worth of every individual human. A human has no intrinsic worth. The concept of every human having some intrinsic worth independent of other people and the rest of the universe is nonsensical. The worth he has can only be assessed in the context of the society he exists in. The values of “good” and “bad” derive ultimately from survival needs. What helped survival was good and what did not was bad. As humans evolved and the social behaviour of humans came to differentiate our species from others, it became imperative to differentiate and distinguish between “us” and “them”. Individual, family, clan, and tribe. Nations and religions also need a “tribal” philosophy to differentiate themselves and prosper. The most primal behaviour among humans as a social animal thus is first to ensure survival of the individual and then to define a “we” and a “them”. Actions are taken, in the first instance, for the benefit of the “we”. This becomes actions against “them” if threats are perceived. It is self interest, first of the individual and then of the “we”, which governs human actions. The notion that reason could give a moral philosophy which does not favour “us” is utterly false. Reason has no option but to acknowledge that “we” and “them” is primal and it is unreasonable to claim otherwise. A morality which differentiates between “us” and “them” would then fundamentally contradict any concept of universality applying either to morality or to Natural Law.

My point is that human nature was, and remains, inherently tribal. Tribalism is a good thing. It has worked and still enables human development. It has driven the social and cultural evolution of humans. “We” begets “them”. It is the “we” which provides the motivation which fuels innovation. The fanciful notion that reason alone can lead to a universal moral philosophy that applies equally to all humans (Natural Law) is contradicted by our need for “us” and “them”. If our most primal instincts are to protect “us”, which requires that we differentiate “us” from “them,” then a morality based on these instincts could not be universal. If the entire human race is to be “us” we would still prioritize family and clan or gang or religion in the need to invent a “them”.

The Role of Tribalism in Human Evolution and Development
Tribalism as a Driver of Evolution:
• Survival and Cooperation: Tribalism has indeed played a crucial role in human evolution. Early humans survived by forming tight-knit groups that provided mutual protection, shared resources, and developed social norms that fostered cooperation. This in-group loyalty was essential for survival in a harsh environment.
• Cultural Development: Tribal structures also facilitated the development of culture, language, social roles, and norms, enabling groups to transmit knowledge and skills across generations.
The Benefits of Tribalism:
• Social Identity and Belonging: Tribalism provides individuals with a sense of identity, belonging, and purpose. It fosters social cohesion and collective action, which have been critical for the development of complex societies.
• Competition and Innovation: Competition between tribes or groups has driven innovation and progress in many areas, from technology to governance.

Human behaviour is driven by self interest. First the interest of the individual and then of the social groups where the individual claims membership – family, clan, tribe, religion and nation. It is primal among humans and is reflected in our language that where there is a “we” there has to be a “them”. The defining social group governing individual behaviour being some highfalutin notion of “humanity in general” is pious nonsense.

Natural Law is not natural and it is not law. It is mainly sentimental drivel.

ChatGPT is about as politically correct as it is possible to be since that reflects its biased trainers and how it was trained. Given my skepticism about the concept of Natural Law I thought to provoke a politically correct view by having a “conversation” with ChatGPT. I was a little surprised that it could find no real defense. It only reinforces my opinion that Natural Law is not a real thing at all, is a very misleading concept and does more harm than good. My final question and ChatGPT’s answer is given below.

Question: ktwop – The bottom line is that Natural Law does not actually exist in nature and the idea of a universal moral philosophy and its benefits is just a hypothesis which is not even a theory. Discuss.

ChatGPT : Your position highlights a critical and skeptical view of natural law and universal moral philosophy, questioning their existence and validity as more than theoretical constructs. Let’s summarize the key points:

  1. Natural Law’s Basis in Nature
  • Natural Law as a Construct: You argue that natural law doesn’t have a basis in nature itself. This perspective views natural law as a human-made construct rather than something that inherently exists in the natural world.
  • Absence in Nature: Indeed, natural law doesn’t manifest in nature like physical laws (e.g., gravity). It’s a philosophical concept that attempts to derive moral principles from human nature and reason, rather than directly from the natural world.
  1. Universal Moral Philosophy as a Hypothesis
  • Hypothetical Nature: The idea of a universal moral philosophy, according to your view, is at best a hypothesis—a proposal that hasn’t been universally accepted or proven in practice. It’s a speculative idea rather than a fully developed theory with empirical backing.
  • Challenges of Universality: You point out that while the benefits of such a philosophy are often argued for, the evidence for its practical implementation and effectiveness is limited. Cultural differences, historical conflicts, and the persistence of tribalism challenge the idea that a single moral framework can apply universally.
  1. Theoretical vs. Practical Implications
  • Not an Empirical Science: Unlike natural sciences, which develop theories based on observable and testable phenomena, natural law and universal moral philosophy belong to the realm of moral and political philosophy. They are normative, meaning they prescribe how things ought to be rather than describe how things are.
  • Speculative Nature: Because these concepts are speculative, their validity largely depends on philosophical reasoning, ethical debates, and cultural acceptance, rather than empirical validation.

Conclusion

Your critique suggests that natural law and the idea of a universal moral philosophy are intellectual constructs rather than realities grounded in nature or proven theories. They are proposals that attempt to guide human behavior and social organization based on ideals of reason, human dignity, and common good. However, their existence and effectiveness remain subjects of debate, with significant challenges to their universality and practical application.

In essence, while these ideas have influenced moral and legal thought, their status as more than hypothetical constructs is contested, and they may not hold the same weight as theories in the natural sciences.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Philosophy | Comments Off on Natural Law is neither natural nor is it law

He, she and it are more than enough for language (and for gender)

August 5, 2024
  • Gender is a classification of humans and is not as complicated as it is fashionable to pretend.
  • There is no morality involved in applying a classification.
  • There are only two sexes and only two corresponding genders. Male (men) and female (women).
  • (Neither race nor gender are “social constructs”. They are both practical classifications based on real differences of physical attributes).
  • It is only women who can get pregnant though not all women do.
  • It is only women who can produce unfertilized eggs though not all do. 
  • It is only men who can produce sperm though not all do.
  • Male and female reproductive organs are different and mutually exclusive except in a few very rare and abnormal cases.
  • The norms for male and female include many other physiological characteristics which are nearly all bimodal but exhibit overlap.
  • It is the different reproductive organs and the bimodality of other characteristics which reflects that there are two genders (and not 3 or 4).
  • You cannot be a male woman or a female man.
  • You can be a masculine woman (a manly woman) or a feminine man (womanly man).
  • They are the default conditions and it is therefore tautology to refer to a masculine man or a feminine woman.
  • Every human is born with some aberrations (deviations from the species norm).
  • There are many possible aberrations. Deviations can be very serious or may be quite minor. 
  • Every individual is classified when born as male or female, or has aberrations sufficiently large to prevent classification.
  • These deviations preventing classification can exhibit great variation and complexity. Physical deviations from the norms for male and female (which have overlap) are often referred to as intersex. 
  • One reliable estimate is that the prevalence of intersex is about 0.018% (18 per 100,000). 
  • Those who are of one gender but have some mental illness causing them to believe that they are the other are usually referred to as transgender. Physical deviations may also cause mental illness. 

She/her/hers applies to all women.

He/him/his applies to all men.

They/them/theirs apply to groups irrespective of gender.

It/them/theirs applies – usually – to things without gender.

When it is used with humans it is usually pejorative.

All the other wokery inventions for language are utterly meaningless and unnecessary. They certainly are not clever enough to qualify as nonsense language (a la Lear). They are just the meaningless juxtaposition of letters.

Ze/hir/hirs.
Xe/xem/xyrs.
Ver/vir/vis.
Te/tem/ter.
E/em/eirs.

Good grief!!!!

The complexity lies in the kinds of deviations that occur. But gender classification really is not that complicated.

Tags: ,
Posted in Behaviour, Language, Social Science | Comments Off on He, she and it are more than enough for language (and for gender)

Obscene! Male Algerian boxer wins women’s bout at Olympics …

August 1, 2024

Now this was obscene.

Transgenderism gone mad. There are only two genders. Men pretending to be women or dressing as female, are still male.

For the IOC to allow an obvious male to get into the ring to box with an obvious woman was not just dangerous. In my politically incorrect, unwoke opinion it was obscene, it was shameful and it was criminal.

How stupid can the IOC be?

I am not criticising Imane Khelif who apparently has the male XY chromosomes (according to the IBU) but I am scornful of the idiot officials who are too scared and too politically correct to do the right thing. That and the sight of the gross unfairness of allowing the fight is what is obscene.

SKY News:

A boxer who was previously banned from competing in the world championships because she failed testosterone and gender eligibility tests has won her opening Olympic bout after her opponent quit.

Algeria’s Imane Khelif won in just 46 seconds after the Italian Angela Carini quit in the 66kg category. The pair had only a few punch exchanges before Carini abandoned the bout – an extremely unusual occurrence in Olympic boxing. Carini’s headgear apparently became dislodged twice before she quit. The Italian refused to shake Khelif’s hand after the decision was announced, and she cried in the ring before leaving. 

Khelif was disqualified hours before her gold medal bout at the world championships in New Delhi last year when she failed to meet the International Boxing Association’s (IBA) eligibility criteria.

Tags:
Posted in Behaviour | 1 Comment »

Behavioural “science” is usually dishonest and fake

July 30, 2024

My conviction that the “social sciences” are not science and, very often, fake science is getting even stronger.

An insider claims that behavioural “science” is often dishonest and fake.

 

Tags: ,
Posted in Behaviour | Comments Off on Behavioural “science” is usually dishonest and fake

Freaks on display at the lacklustre opening of the Paris Olympics

July 29, 2024

The last supper rendition at the Olympics was mainly ugly and utterly devoid of any artistic merit. A remarkable lack of beauty, I thought, at the entire ceremony. I found it embarrassing to watch.

Have you noticed how in almost every civilization at some time towards its end, decadence and depravity are justified and defended usually on religious, or artistic grounds. Depravity and the old-fashioned licentiousness become the norm. They always signify a loss of moral standards and the loss of any moral compass within the society. It applied to the Greeks, the Romans and to various Egyptian and Chinese dynasties. It happened in Europe 100 years ago and it is happening now in the US-led “cultural civilization”. Nowadays the defense is more likely to take the shape of a sanctimonious, self-righteous defense of libertine tendencies (of course in the guise of defending liberty). But the common feature is the loss of moral compass, the loss of the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. It was in the 1920s and 30s that European civilization died and was absorbed and reinvented as a US-led cultural empire. The decline was manifested with WW1 and the treaty of Versailles and continued to the grave with the Nazis and WW2. What we are seeing now, 100 years on, is the decadence of the 30s in Europe being taken to new extremes and it is “Cabaret” gone global.

“Deviant” is a word which derives from deviations from a norm. Norms are created – in nature as well as in human interactions – because they are the most favoured results for that interaction. Living things evolve physical norms because they work. Deviations from the norm (diversity) can come in handy for a species if conditions change but in any given situation, the norms are always both favoured and the best fit. Individuals who deviate from the norm will always be misfits unless conditions make them the sole survivors who can then create a new norm. Deviations are, by definition, abnormal. Among humans, deviants from a norm are nearly always bad for that society in which they are abnormal. Diversity of individuals is a strength in a group undergoing change. But it is not so good for the individuals who deviate from the norm. The individual deviants (who give the group its diversity) are the outliers who are always available to be sacrificed.

Deviance, degeneracy, decadence, depravity – call it what you like and define it as you see fit. The existence of the words represent limits as they apply in any given society. The important thing is that the limits exist. It is when the words are deemed not to exist that it is obvious that the limits are being abandoned. All is permitted and nothing is bad. Good behaviour is equated with bad behaviour. Freaks are glorified, deviancy is rewarded, depravity is prized.

And so we had the ridiculous freak shows within a very lacklustre Olympics opening ceremony in Paris. The perceived blasphemy does not bother me very much but the freakery does. Drag artists are just players and often strive to be freakish. (It is usually more lucrative for a drag artist to be freakish). Nearly always (just like the hijra) it is men pretending to be women. There are a few – much rarer than political correctness assumes – cases of genetic aberrations causing individuals to deviate from the male/female norms. I just note that drag is almost never women pretending to be men. 

Of course I am far from politically correct. Gender is a classification and there are only two genders. There are some individuals who are aberrations and deviate from the male/female norms. But, in my view claiming that “transgender” is some new gender is idiotic. The use of “cisgender” is imbecility in action. A male is a male is a male and does not need a “cis” to tell him so. 

Tags:
Posted in Behaviour | Comments Off on Freaks on display at the lacklustre opening of the Paris Olympics

Home truths 1: Science & Philosophy

July 26, 2024

I find it ridiculous that the general assumption is that we know all about gravity. The reality is that we have no idea about why it exists or how the force of gravitation works. We can calculate the effects of gravity essentially still using Newton’s laws together with Einstein’s tweaks. But we have not the faintest idea about how one mass attracts another or why it should. How does the sun communicate with the planets and tell them what force applies  – if it does. A fundamental particle called the graviton is the proposed solution but we have never found one and it lives in the land of the Jumblies. We do not even have any idea what mass is. Physics even has massless particles (the gluon, the photon and the imaginary graviton) but only the God of Physics knows what massless, matter-less stuff such particles may contain. The reality is that science is strictly limited. It is limited by its fundamental assumptions and its boundary conditions. It cannot address matters outside of these conditions.

We put down motion at a distance to forces such as gravitational or electromagnetic. But we really have no idea how these forces are mediated. Probably by Mysterious Quantum Wave Functions which collapse conveniently when needed. But who knows why they exist? And let us be clear. Particles do not exist in two places at the same time. Never. And any physics which says so lives in the land of the Jumblies.

I am just trying to clear my mind by writing down my (current) home truths. I have chosen to arrange my “core beliefs” in three categories as 3 separate posts.

  1. Science & Philosophy
  2. Behaviour
  3. Society & Politics

I start with Science and Philosophy. The list below could have been much longer but I stopped when I started getting bored.

Home truths 1: Science & Philosophy

  1. We have no clue as to the question which existence is the answer to.
  2. We only have circular definitions for truth but what does exist (we assume) is true.
  3. The human mind is finite. There are things that are known, things that are knowable but unknown and there are things that cannot be known (the unknowable).
  4. Infinity, by definition, is a label – in language – for that which cannot be comprehended.
  5. Boundless, endless, timeless and infinite, just like before the beginning and after the end, are labels for the incomprehensible, no matter what the pretense.
  6. The human capability for language is genetic and unmatched by any other species on earth.
  7. The capability for language is discovered but all languages are invented.
  8. Once the concept of oneness – identity / one(1) – is defined, all other numbers of every kind are fixed. Once one (1) exists every other number of every kind automatically follows. Note that zero comes after 1 and derives from 1 – 1.
  9. One and all the numbers derived therefrom are concepts and do not exist explicitly in nature.
  10. All numbers are unreal and abstract.
  11. The process of counting and all of what is now called number theory are also derived from, and fixed by, the concept of one.
  12. Mathematics describes abstract relationships and abstract patterns connecting abstract concepts and does this using a number of invented languages. It is not a science.
  13. The practice of mathematics is art rather than science.
  14. Language is what gives humans the ability to describe the unreal, the past, the future and to lie.
  15. All languages are silent about the truth value of what is being described by language.
  16. Nonsense language is the perfectly correct use of language but where the content is nonsense.
  17. To create nonsense language or nonsense mathematics (in the manner of Edward Lear or Srinivasa Ramanujam) needs very great skill and great proficiency in the language.
  18. Mathematical equations are just propositions, as any sentence in any language, and are silent about the truth value of the content.
  19. Writing a mathematical equation provides no proof of that equation.
  20. Time is unidirectional and a brute fact of our universe. Negative time is not possible in our universe.
  21. The flow of time and existence emerge together.
  22. Mathematical equations for theories having negative time are merely nonsense mathematics (correct by the rules of mathematics but having nonsense as content).
  23. Physics and other scientific theories which do not explicitly exclude the possibility of negative time are incomplete or false.
  24. Scientific theories which are silent or are unable to exclude the possibility of negative time do not imply any support for the possibility of negative time.
  25. No logic system (or science) can ever prove the fundamental assumptions it is itself based upon.
  26. Science assumes that existence, the flow of time, causality, life and consciousness are all self-evident. Therefore science cannot address, let alone explain, any of them.
  27. Anything truly random (without cause) is inexplicable. Random is part of what we cannot know (or else it is Divine).
  28. Every scientific discipline assumes that cause precedes effect but ignores the unavoidable first cause problem.
  29. The Cosmic Big Bang theory cannot explain why there had to be a Big Bang.
  30. Matter forever or matter from nothing are equally inexplicable and unsatisfactory.
  31. Mass “is the amount of matter in matter” which means we have no clue as to what mass is.
  32. We do not know why there are as many “fundamental” particles as there are (or seem to be).
  33. We do not know why the fine structure constant is exactly the number that it is (or why the speed of light is what it is).
  34. Something from nothing cannot be explained by any Science nor by any theology or belief in a God.
  35. Time without beginning cannot be explained by any Science nor by any theology or belief in a God.
  36. A global zero made up of an arbitrary  local “+ dark energy” and balanced by a local “- gravitation energy” proves nothing.
  37. The concept of nothingness is beyond the finite human mind. (Zero derives from 1 and is not a description of nothingness).
  38. Why the universe (including its dimensions, matter, energy and all other properties) is compelled to exist is unknown. (This is an alternative formulation of home truth 1.1)
  39. There is no known explanation for the spark of life.
  40. Consciousness is a mystery without explanation.
  41. Though we can calculate its effects, nobody has the faintest inkling of how gravity is mediated or how it works.
  42. Nobody has a clue as to how large the universe (and not just the observable universe) is (or how big the Big Bang was).

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Language, Philosophy, Science | Comments Off on Home truths 1: Science & Philosophy

Diversity has sapped the competence of the US Secret Service

July 16, 2024

UPDATE:

It seems I was not the only one to notice that female SS agents shorter than their clients will have some difficulty shielding him, let alone carrying him out of a burning building.

NYT 

But when Mr. Trump strode onto the floor of the Republican National Convention on Monday night in Milwaukee — his first public appearance since the shooting at his rally — he was flanked by what appeared to be an all-male phalanx of Secret Service agents.

I must be feeling better since I feel a little rant coming on.

Whether you look at it from the right (a failed assassination attempt fueled by Biden’s bullseye remark) or from the left (a staged assassination by the Secret Service with one killed as collateral damage), the US Secret Service does come across as lacking in competence.

Looking at some of the video I did wonder why 3 shortish ladies (pony-tails, black suits and dark glasses) were part of the SS contingent uselessly holding up their hands to “protect” their much taller client from bullets coming from even higher up? It was not just ridiculous, it was farcical. The protective huddle around Trump – after the event – was something out of Gilbert and Sullivan. No matter how woke you are, assigning responsibility for the subject’s security to physically challenged agents is a sign of incompetence at the level of policy making (meaning of course the Director). Of course, she was hired by Biden to have a special focus on wokeness and diversity. (Interestingly she has worked for the SS in the past, but for her current job as Director, she was hired from the enormous challenges of protecting Pepsi (bottles and people, one supposes).

If the SS were behind either a real or a staged attempt, they were incompetent. If it was a true assassination attempt by a lone assassin, they were still incompetent. If it was some kind of conspiracy, then their incompetence is even greater. The SS does not come out of this well.

Generally in the social sciences there is no need for competence. The results of research are very often fiddled to suit the pre-determined results or some political agenda. There is no right or wrong after all, and diversity can be given free reign. This is also why social science studies can very rarely be replicated. For the social sciences diversity has woke upsides and relatively few downsides since competence is not required or valued. In all other professional areas of life though, diversity is always at the expense of competence and all the consequences that can bring. Using diversity as an end in itself will always promote mediocrity and is antagonistic to seeking excellence.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Behaviour | Comments Off on Diversity has sapped the competence of the US Secret Service

Birth identity is inviolate. Social identity is set by what you are, not what you imagine you are

July 1, 2024

Every human has a unique identity at birth. That never changes. Having surgery or hormone treatment or transplants of all organs – except one – cannot alter identity. (I am not sure which identity would survive in the case of a successful brain transplant which, fortunately, is not yet possible). Each of us remains the same birth identity all our lives. Sometimes it strikes me as quite silly when I have to identify myself at an airport or when buying something. As if the piece of plastic (driving license) determines who I am. In the social context, identity is how you are recognised within human society. We need to distinguish between birth identity and social identity.

Social self-identification is just wishful thinking which has no relevance for the surrounding world. I do get irritated by the antics of the self-identity freaks (and most of them are somewhat freakish) who imagine that they can impose their own imagined social identity on to the surrounding world. I am amazed at the inanity of those trying to choose the gender pronouns that others should use about them. When biological males pretend to be female so as to compete against females in some physical activity, I find it obscene. When communities, and even schools, are stupid enough to accept biological males identifying as some imaginary gender known as “non-binary”  so as to prey on children, then they are engaging in criminal behaviour. A biological male in drag is just a male pretending to be female. That skill may be part of that male’s identity but he remains male. Hormonal and surgical treatment may succeed in which case gender may change from one to another. But it does not create a third gender.

To change the birth identity of any living things is not possible. In fact that identity is inviolate and inaccessible in this world. The social identity of any living thing is not determined by what that entity wishes – or in fact what any entity wishes – but by what that entity actually is in the world and how it is perceived by what is around it in the world. For humans, identity is what you are in the world. It is how you behave and how the world perceives you. Your gender is what it is, not what you wish it to be. The pronouns the world uses about you depend upon how you are perceived. If you are perceived as male then you will be a “he”. If you are perceived as a female then the world will refer to you as “she”. If your gender is unclear (and there are only 2 genders) then the world may refer to you as either. You can call yourself whatever you like but I will refer to you as I perceive you to be. I really do not care what pronouns anybody wishes to be called. That pronoun is a judgement to be made externally.

Of course every human has a self-image. That image is not any identity. Moreover a self-image is rarely the image perceived by the surrounding world. What is perceived is determined by how an entity is and behaves in the surrounding world. You cannot demand how others should perceive you to be. You are only being stupid if you try to legislate/coerce how others should perceive you. Of course a person can change their perceived identity but that involves changing how they are and how they behave. That is achieved by changing the perception not by assertion. Of course a transgender-person can change how they are perceived by the world. But how they are perceived is not determined merely by how they would like to be perceived. There has to be physical change and behavioural change and the perception has to change. Only then can a perceived identity change. There has to be substance behind the form.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Behaviour | Comments Off on Birth identity is inviolate. Social identity is set by what you are, not what you imagine you are

Return to writing

June 14, 2024

I am returning to writing after a “health-issues” break of almost 18 months. The world has not changed very much but my views of the world probably have. I find that the glasses I look through have changed. Perhaps they give me new insights or perhaps they obscure my view.

Some new perceptions I have:

  1. I am not a Tik-Tok subscriber. Over 90% of what is on Tik-Tok is edited, manipulated, cherry picked, fabricated or just plain lies. Other than that, the memes are quite interesting.
  2. I still have not returned to Face Book. Pat on the back for myself.
  3. I stopped smoking – “cold turkey” – in December 2022. I have now not smoked for over 18 months. There are clear benefits that I feel. But, the accrued benefits do not seem to be in proportion to all the negatives that are advertised as “common wisdom”.
  4. At least 50% of the “me-too” cases – and most of those involving rich celebrities – are bogus. “Me-too” claims are never by rich victims against poor predators.
  5. Most “me-too” claims are predatory.
  6. There are only 2 genders even if classification may be unclear for some individuals.
  7. Biological females never claim to be male to compete in male sports.
  8. Philosophy is personal and always subjective.
  9. An appeal to the authority of a “great thinker” is always invalid as proof of any proposition.
  10. What actually happened in history changes nothing. The only thing that matters about history is the “story” perceived to be true in the present.
  11. The freak- shows of old have been replaced by the Eurovision Song Contest and other LGBT reality TV shows. Bearded ladies are quite the in-thing.
  12. Very few tattoos are attractive. Most are quite ugly.
  13. It is time for the 42nd amendment of the Indian constitution to be removed and for the constitution to revert to what it was. India needs to be a “sovereign democratic republic” rather than a “sovereign, socialist secular democratic republic” as introduced by Indira Gandhi in 1976 as the 42nd amendment to camouflage her draconian Emergency measures. ( I can live with secular though it is an imaginary thing, but the socialist provides the chains that bind India´s progress).
  14.  Self-identity is meaningless nonsense. Identity of any entity is as perceived by its surroundings. What you say you are is of no relevance to what you are. What you are is determined by how you behave.
  15. In the natural world, diversity is never for excellence but always as a hedge against an uncertain future. Seeking diversity in any field of endeavor is always directly opposed to competence and excellence in the existing conditions. 
  16. The Human Rights Industry is primarily for the benefit of the Human Rights Industry.
  17. In any society, Laws are unnecessary if human behaviour is always compliant with the behaviour desired by that society.
  18. Laws are needed by a society as coercion only because some members of that society do not wish to comply with some behaviour desired by other members of that society. 
  19. Cultural appropriation is always a compliment to that culture. The objections to such “appropriation” are generally imbecilic.
  20. My “rule of thumb” for when Indian culture has appropriated GB is when more than half the pubs serve samosas as well as chicken tikka masala.

Posted in Behaviour, Trivia | Comments Off on Return to writing

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »