Thursday, 27 August 2009

Golden Mean

As a kid, I used to wonder, why do film music have to have so many songs based on "love"? While , at this stage of life, the question appears to be too stupid. But I am sure, many still don't understand , perhaps the ones who haven't had a whiff of love.

The point however isn't about the pervasive nature of love. But , rather about the notion of things that we have until we have encountered it ourselves. This position is golden mean of our society. A mean to which a vast swathe of population concur. A singer knows, what a song is to him, a lover knows what love is to him, a dancer knows what are moves to him. But what does common wisdom know about it. How do people arrive on generalities?

Book readers are nerd, yet well informed. Singers are sweet yet eccentric. Software whiz are nerds but they are intelligent. We have a generality for everything around us. Every profession ,every act, every condition which a human could possibly be in , is viewed through that golden glass. Yet, the beauty is that the untruth gives way to truth. As the veneer of common wisdom is eroded , we are able to see the truth that society had shrouded with conventional truths. And when we encounter those moments of truth ourselves, we think ,"O ! my god! it is this!". Never had the wisdom of mass or general population been ready to ascribe or visualize things the way they are ought to be.

An another example would help me put my point forth. Suppose you were born blind, what would the general accepted notion would be. "God's wrath", "parent's sin"," unlucky", "special children of god" and so on. All these are words created by the vast multitude of population who could see. But what would you think, if you were to have the capacity to accept your thoughts, even though it would defy conventional wisdom. "Blindness is blindness". Its a deformity when considered with respect to the large mass of world population. But how does it make me lucky or unlucky. How does this world know, what the blinds can "see"? How can the world of viewers "understand" the world of visually impaired. Its a state in which I am and I manage through it, just as the way others manage with their "deformities", be it of strength (physical or mental), or something else.

I do not intend to say that blinds are not troubled by their blindness and they would like to be the same forever, but that the notions attached are not of blind people, but of the people out of them . General mass could never think the way Helen Keller did. And so the general or commonly accepted convention could never be radical nor conducive for any improvement.But still, the generality is what we intend go by,and the irony is that these very notions are imposed over personal beliefs of others. And its not difficult to identify the reason for the same. The society thrives on the basic principle

You scratch my back and I will scratch yours
Now, If you were to require more number of people to scratch your back , you need to scratch more number of people's back. That's the primary reason for mediocrity. One who needs a lot from society has to give in a lot and he does that at the risk of losing individual identity. This is the pernicious effect of society. But then some people realize the truth , when they don't need too many people to scratch their back. They have better sense of their individuality and freedom to look at things they way they actually are. Nevertheless , its easy to estimate that the costs are huge.

This gives rise to esoteric ideas. An esoteric group understands and relishes each other's thoughts which to the general mass appears to be eccentric. Now, if we know and understand that this is the inherent nature of masses, what can we do to avoid its effect on us? Avoid society or social conventions? Pick judiciously, truth from the vast multitudes of bent truth and moderated truth? Accept that the truth about things could be observed by a select group only ? Stand by the truthfulness observed and shun every other thing?

I am afraid the answer to most of them would be "yes", nevertheless, the idea itself is more of self realization than that of imposed realization, with the moot question being , "are we ready to take the trouble and look at things beyond what we could see with our eyes?". Whatever one does, there is no escaping the fact, that there will always be a select group of people only who would take the pain to look into truth and for them either it would be a deliberated choice or natural effort to belong to that class of people.

What do I conclude from all this ? Society, for its existence needs a golden mean and sticks by it. It distorts the truth , moderates it and preserves it in that manner. There are many truths to be realized, all very different from what we "generally" know, and sadly its the prerogative of select few to take that burden upon themselves. Tell me what do you think.

No comments: