Monday, January 24, 2005

Sunday, October 10, 2004

I went out last night to this club called Sanctuary, its a decently nice place with three floors but you can primarily dance on the bottom floor. Needless to say I was a bit plastered. So I danced for a good portion of the night but after a while I took a break and stood at the side and just watched people. I watched as people drunken tried to hit on each other and grab each other. I thought is this how I am when i get drunk and go out. I am that guy who can barely hold a coherent conversation and is falling all over the place and trying to hit on anything that remotely resembles a woman? Is this the person that my parents raised? Is this the person i want to be or who I am? Yes it leads to fun and interesting stories of how much of an idiot i am and can be but how important is that?

I watched as guys moved from one girl to another in a quest to find their newest conquest to satisfy their sensual desires. I know at some level that the girls know that this is what the guys are looking for and maybe that is why many of them are on the defensive. I usually try to avoid this situation and being like any other guy that tries to play the numbers/probability game, you know who moves from girl to girl getting shot down until he finds either one who is interested, desperate or drunk enough to hook up with him. If you really considered this "game", it is really quite ridiculous and somewhat disgusting. Essentially, it is based on the idea that any girl is substitutable for another as long as they are "willing" to hook up. It essentially changes a woman into an object or a means to achieve an end. Granted if a girl is interested in the guy, it changes things a little but it still doesn't hit the heart of the matter, which is the mentality of the guy who choses this method of getting women, which is that in his mind all girls are the same as long as they will hook up.

Oddly or sadly, this method is much more effective than being a nice guy. The idiom "nice guys finish last" is quite the truth. Maybe its because nice guys give off the impression that they aren't: confident, tough, passionate, untameble and so on. Now, let me just clarify, i've never been considered a nice guy until people get to know me before that point I'm usually and universally thought of as being a jackass, or just a pompous know it all jerk, i prefer the former, doesn't sound as bad as pompous know it all jerk. Generally, nice guys aren't the ones who play this numbers game because they have a bit more respect for themselves and the woman or maybe they don't have audacity or the self-confidence to do this. For the nice guy, he thinks that its through friendship and hanging around the girl that the girl will eventually see him for him and then will like him, sometimes this works but more often than not it doesn't. Well, the reason that they finish last is that they are taken for granted, much too often. The girl knows that the nice guy will never leave her hanging and will be there for her. I only know of a few guys who are genuinely nice and have gotten the girl that they want, suffices to say it doesn't happen often. I'm case and point, when i'm nice things don't work out but when i'm a jackass it works out, insofar as women are concerned. I sometimes think i want to be that nice guy but seeing the reality of the world, it makes me pull away from that because "nice guys do finish last".

Friday, October 08, 2004

These last few months have been a bit heated due to the coming elections. Politics is the center of everything now. We turn on the news and all we see is political campaigning and pandering, to the point were we have no clue as to what this election is about. Law school is apparently one of the places where one may receive key and insightful perspectives into politics, because as we know law and politics are so intricately intertwined. Sadly this idea of gaining an unique insight into Politics is a wrong one. Law school isn't about thinking critically about an issue but learning "black letter law". We read cases to try and figure what a judge has said and why they said that. We don't look at the presuppositions that are present in their view and what implications that has. Law has had philosophy ripped from its core, it is an empty shell. Just as Politics has had philosophy ripped from its soul. Both of these fields have ceased to be about a calling and have become purely only professions or careers.

Law is about making money ( I must qualify this statement and say that for many if not most lawyers) and is not about trying to provide justice or social upliftment and choice. The same goes for politicals but substitute power for money (although it can be argued and successfully that money equals power). Maybe I am naive and idealistic, and there never exist a time in which this wasn't true. I watched both the Presidental and Vice-Presidental debates with this in mind. Although I tend to agree with the Kerry/Edwards position a bit more than the Bush/Cheney position, i still wonder how much of that they truly believe or even care about it. Is it all rhetoric? I'm not sure. We talk about democracy in this country like its the word of the day. How many times has each side espoused that term? much too many to count.

Democracy is a system of bottom up power. It is a system in which power comes from the people and their own personal sovereignty (this is my own personal thought and i have yet to read it in any political, legal or philosophical work but if you read it before let me know). In a monarchy, the power stems from the King and through him it is filtered down into his cabinet and administration, meaning this..the King is the reservoir of all political power and even if you combine the power of all the individuals in society it cannot equal or be superior to the King's power, this even goes for laws, a king is not bound to obey the law because the law derives its power from him but nonetheless he may obey the law as an example or any other reason. In a Democracy, the individual is the sovereign and it is in pooling their individual sovereignty together that creates the power of the State. In otherwords, the State cannot possess more sovereignty or power than the entirity of its individual citizens. Individuals must possess some remainder of sovereignty after they transfer a portion to the State otherwise they cease to be participating in any democracy and it reverts to some other form of governance such as a monarchy, oligarchy or such. It is that remainder that becomes "rights" such as right to life, liberty, happiness, privacy and so on. It is that realm that the government cannot (ideally) regulate or control. The portion of power that was appropriated to the State is that which relates to our actions as a community and in relation to each other, the individual's agency was not transferred to the State (if they did so then any act they did could not be ascribed to them). Nor was the individual's control over themselves transferred, for it had been then again their actions cannot be ascribed to them nor could you even say that "they" as individuals acted. The state cannot tell individuals how to live their own lives or what they can or can't do to their own bodies or lives. It's powers must be relegated to the realm of unconsented interaction between individuals.

What does this all have to do with my point about politics been without a soul any more? Well, simply this We as a society and even our leaders do not address any of these issues. We leave it to "academics". What rationale is given for no-abortion aside from "state's interest" that is secular in nature? None...What about homosexual marriage or relations? None.... What about drug use? None.... What about euthanasia? None....Prostitution? None...(although there is a valid Feminist argument against allowing prostitution but i think that more applies to society than to a State) Our politicians make references to taxes all the time but they never talk about why one should raise or lower taxes. Why don't our leaders debate on what they think the function of a State is? Is the state required to provide basic needs to those of its citizens that don't have it? Should a State have vested interests outside of its citizens? I think this is the heart of Politics as understood by the great thinkers and the ancient world, it is a view that we have widely departed from and I'm not sure if it is possible to return to that, at least in America.

Universe is either in order or in chaos, depending on how you view the nature of your life. Order necessarily springs from the belief that there is purpose and rational for all things. Chaos is pure randomness and spontaniety, it is creativeness at its peak. Life is either a coincidence or it is fate. In some respects they are mutually exclusive. If you are fated for a specific thing then it can't be pure randomness that it occurs. This is a question that has perplexed people from the dawn of history, what governs us our free will, which would imply chaos insofar it is random and utterly dependant on our choices or does destiny control?
What is very deeply linked to this question is the idea of justice. Justice implicitly requires order. In Greek, the word Dike means Justice but not the same sort of justice we understand today but it aligns itself with more of natural or ultimate justice or order. This is very much like the word in sanskrit Dharma, which has many meanings but primarily refers to natural order/justice, its precursor is the word Rta (pronounced Ritha). The idea of Justice is that of making these right or as they should be. A individual has been wrong and it must be corrected and set back on its original path. This is the basis of the "Scales of Justice" which is held by both the Goddesses Dike and Themis (who was relegated to the realm of mortals, not divine justice). Similarly, the Egyptian Goddess Ma'at was also depicted carring a sword but no scale and the Roman Goddess Jusitia carried both the sword and scales. The scales symbolize the balancing of all the forces until they are balanced evenly and thereby the natural order is restored. When a wrong is committed, the scales tip in one direction and it is required for the scales to balance so an equal action must occur in order for the scales to be restored to the balanced stage
Now if the universe is truly random then how does justice fit in? I'm not entirely sure but it seems that it can't, or at least justice as understood as a restoration as natural order. A universe cannot have any true justice, it can have events that occur in which it seems like justice occurred but that only occurs because of pure probability.

The theory of Karma attempts to give a some-what rational explanation ( I say somewhat rational because it presupposes many things such as ordered universe, divine force, reincarnation, actions have some "value", immortality of the soul, division between the soul and body and so on) The theory of Karma goes like this: this universe is filled with sentient beings and each of these beings possess free will to act. These actions are on their face are neutral and possess no value judgment attached to it (e.g. good and bad). Actions taken by sentient beings can only occur with intent to act (another presuppostion), it is this intent that determines the value of the act. Accordingly every action has either good or bad value to it. The actions committed with good intentions will later come to fruitation for the being just as bad actions but the caveat is that the fruits cannot impede or remove free will. So, the fruits become either obstructions in the being's life (this life or any future life) or they help the being to overcome these obstruction. The fruits also determine the various key factors of the individuals birth (i.e: what family, any genetic problems, level of intelligence, and so on). This is how Karma attempts to explain why good things happen to bad people and how bad things happen to good people, or why an infant is born with so many problems or a person is going through a troublesome time or such a easy life. It paints a very structured and ordered picture of reality. It doesn't necessarily require the existence of a God or higher being, as attested to by the Buddhists and Jains.

It seems that order and chaos are necessary for each other. How can their be order if there is no chaos? Meaning, order must arise from something and order cannot arise from itself because if it does there is no way to differentiate between order and the successive order. When order arises it does not dispel chaos but relegates it to the realm of consciousness, in us. The universe is perfectly ordered but we are on the other hand the perfect chaos. Our minds allow us to take nearly any action and we can concieve of anything, we continually create order in our minds because of the chaos that exists there. Free will makes us disorder and chaos in this universe. Chaos isn't a bad thing, it is necessary and gives us that unique creative spark, it fuels our imagination and allows us to dream. It is the untamed part of the universe and it exists within us.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Human beings need a sense of belonging, a sense that they are not alone in thought or feeling. Is it natural to feel like an outsider despite being in the center of things? Maybe, i'm alone in this but somehow i truly doubt it. In high school, i was that outsider, the one who stood out, it was hard for me not to. I was about a 120 lbs and about 5'8, i was a stick. Not to mention i went to a Catholic School with primarily white affluent kids, many of them driving new cars and top of the line ones at that. I like most teenagers wanted to fit in and be one of the cool kids so I did what many others before me did, i joined the football team. To be honest, I knew nothing about football, i had probably watched only 2 or 3 football games and knew less than the average person knows about the game. Football at my high school was the crown jewel of sports. You were solid gold if you played it. Mater Dei, the high school i went to, was the top rated football program in the country, it had just won the national championship. I joined for two reasons, to prove that to myself that I belonged and two that I could do what people told me I would never be able to do.
To make a long story short, I made some great friends there, well only 2, both of them still my best friends and I learnt a lot about life. I learnt that people are self serving and are drawn to the hype. Meaning that they don't see whats in before their face they see what everyone wants them to see or tells them to see. One thing i strongly understood is that I don't belong, i'm a wanderer. College was similar, i made a lot friends, mostly indian, because hanging out with indians was a totally new experience for me, i didn't have any indian friends really, while growing up. I made my 6th closest friend in college but even through all that i tried to belong and again at the end of that I learnt i don't belong, i'm a drifter. The relationships that everyone in that Indian circle had with each other, i never had or didn't feel to that level except for the close friend i made there.
Now Law School, i think its here that i've really come to grips with this. I look around and think to myself, "what am I doing here?" I started to drink my senior in college, I was 22, thats odd given our social and cultural milieu. It was then that I developed my party animal personality, but is that who i am? I'm not sure. I interact with everyone but I'm not sure if anyone knows me, in any real sense. They know that i'm a moral and centered person, for the most part but aside from that? I feel like an person in the center of the storm yet unconnected to it.

Sunday, August 29, 2004

Ahhh...its been about a week and half since my last blog. I'm back in da Bean (aka Boston) for my last year of law school. I got in on August 22nd morning and ever since have pretty much been partying like an animal.

We had orientation this past week. Monday was Minority Orientation and that was a good event. I had to give a speech about SAALSA (South Asian American Law School Association or something) , you'd think we'd at least make it more desi and call it CURRY or MASAALA (Magnificient Awesome South Asian American Law Association) but i guess not. Anyways i make my speech and talk about Unity among the various minority groups and yes i happened to mention drinking once or twice but clearly for comedic effect and to lax the tension the 1L's might feel.

The first thing I notice is my guamian roommate Leevin pulls his hat over his head and slinks into his chair, in what I assume is shame, so that inspired me more, the more shame I can bring to Leevin the better so I continued on my alcohol train of thought and finished my speech. A few of the professors came by after the speech and said I did a good job but thats neither here nor there.

Then for the rest of the week we pretty much got drunk and helped 1L's, we helped the guys and hit on the girls, I mean come on, why else do you think all the single guys in law school volunteer for the White orientation festivities (in contrast to minority orienation the rest of the week is White Orientation). Its not the beautiful law tower nor the amazing BU beach also known as the grass next to the tower. Clearly its the incoming women. All the guys know this is the time to make your initial move, why because these girls are at a vulnerable time simply because its a new place, with new people and a new life. Plus law school is a daunting idea which happens to be rapidly becoming a reality for these people. What better time to move in and offer "help".

I'm not saying we provide no help but for some reason the help is more for the girls. I actually made friends with a few LLM students because I totally understand what it is like to come to a new country and so I from deep, deep, deep down decided to be nice. Niceness doesn't come naturally to me, I've been referred to as the Lord of Darkness and Lies, the Devil, Despised One but generally Asshole or Jackass covers it.

I got ridiculously hammered on friday night. We went to SBA social on the 1st floor, free beers so i had like 13 and i was feeling good then. Then we went to An Tua Nua's and I had 2 shots of yagermeister and a cranberry vodka, so suffice to say I was plastered. It was a fun night.

Sat was chill, helped Vanessa and Sloan move into their new place but Sloan was in Athens for the Olympics. She got to pray to Poseidon, that angers me, cause I wanna pray to Poseidon and the rest of the Greek deities in Greece. They are very similar to Vedic Deities and so I feel a certain philosophical and cultural connection to ancient Hellenic civilizations. I'm tired more later.

No comments: