Saturday, November 28, 2009

Controversies, offense, liberals et all

Expanding on the previous post. Disclaimer: For whatever it is worth: I am not offended that nude pictures were drawn, not boiling over in angst or see any religion being thoroughly diminished by this one instance.

1. There seems be an equal an opposite argument to almost every argument one can come up with on this issue. And all arguments including mine seem to be equally flawed. This post probably adds more to the nonsense and is tagged under my new theory 'awareness, though is something, is not everything'. The flaws are exploited by both M.F and shiv sena so that they can do their own thing. Flaws/Loopholes serve to maintain equilibrium in the real world. M.F. had his way and shiv sena theirs.

2. I disagree with people who say that M.F. already has lot of money and so this is not about money. For all his richness, I think M.F. still needs to maintain and increase his money/fame. This is not about art or freedom of speech. Completely not. This is just like so many other 'revealing' autobiographies. The controversy is for marketing purposes. Money. So let us just treat it like that.

3. Most of the controversies surrounding religion, I have seen so far have always been about money. Some publicity is created by mocking some aspect of religion, The characterization of this controversy is someone stupidly picking an aspect of religion completely out of context. They get away by claiming some reference to old literature.

4. The people who "truly" oppose such "blasphemies" because it offends their religious beliefs are not the ram sena, shiv sena goondas. In fact the goondas care less about it than the common man. They overreact to get political mileage. For purposes of telling the common man that 'hey! I am here for you'. And violence during such instances always allow the goondas to finish off past personal vendetta.

5. So in effect the people who create the controversy and people who get offended are 'extremists' and do it for purposes other than adherence to religion.

6. The news carries only the extremist (both M.F Hussain and Shiv Sena in this case)point of view. But not the common man's view. Gives an impression that there can be only two categories - 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Just like marriage matrimonial ads where people ask for 'traditional' or 'broadminded' alliances. There is no space for 'normal' people here. When I see the words 'liberal' and 'broadminded' being used, I wonder what crap do people throw out in their everyday lives that they are desperately begging for me to be 'broadminded'. They think that's their only hope for acceptance. Normal people do not need to tolerate idiotic behavior of other people in the pretext of having the broad mind. The 'normal' mind will allow of toleration of normal behavior. I suspect the extra broadness is allow for 'abnormal' behavior on part of the extremists.

7. When prominent personalities say "hindus are offended" at some controversy. Amit Varma and other liberal types react by saying "hindus are not offended" and also say "xyz person is not representative of hindus". Thereby they commit the same logical flaw of talking on behalf of a larger cross section of people. Let me commit the same logical flaw now. Such liberals, to me, do not represent normal people ('yes' I get to define 'normal' and as mentioned this post is not without its flaws). They follow the logic of 'liberalism' or 'broadmindedness' described in # 7 above. 'Normal' Atheists don't hate god and don't passionately believe that the opposite of god exists. They just don't share the beliefs of religious people and leave it at that. Conversely - when 'normal' religious person believes in God they love God like a family member or in some cases even more. 'Normal' behavior is to get offended when someone makes nude art out of it or puts it in toilet papers. 'Normal' atheists won't get offended at such things but will certainly recognize that it is natural that an average religious person will be. If there are so called 'liberals' who are not offended and expect other to not be offended - then they do not have normal adherence to their atheism or their religion. They throw out crap because they want people to be broadminded and take in that crap. So regular people who don't feel the urge to eat crap need not be expected to tow the line of such liberals.

8. Saying one instance of controversy does not break a great religion is also, according to me, very stupid. "siru thuli peru vellam". Small drops create an ocean. The sum of the parts of all these small controversies is larger than any one instance. It is the growing trend or aggregation that is distinctly and deliberately favoring the anti-religion point of view that concerns any average religious person. Normal people are intelligent enough to know the value of "one instance" they don't need liberals to point it out for them. When someone slaps me in school today. The one instance will not kill me. But if he does it from LKG to 12th standard every other day then it definitely is a big thing. Being asked to not react to it for the sake of being "liberal" and for the logic of "will this one slap kill you" is just plain idiotic. Which is what I find liberals saying today.

9. Lastly, many good things can be destroyed. A 'good thing' cannot be defined by its 'invulnerability' or 'permanence'. In fact it can be the opposite. I would expect good things to be 'vulnerable' and 'hard to hold on to'. People are wrong when they say that "if you beieve hinduism is a great thing then it should not crumble because of a single criticism". Most good things like good habits in profession, academic, science, research are difficult to adopt and are extremely fragile. If you are not disciplined enough it will slip away in notime at all. And most good things need not make 100% sense in today's context. They will have things you don't understand and things that can be taken out of context. Let us assume that in some corner of religious literature available there is a passing reference to 'lakshmi' or 'saraswathi' as nude. It is not wholly representative of the entire religion. The person who did that may or may not have the same intention as Hussain. Picking that out, singling it and saying that is representative of religion because people have done it before makes me suspect that your intention is not about representing religion truly (M.F. Hussain is not so devout a hindu that he felt great sorrow and angst that a part of hinduism was fading away into obscurity. He did not pick out this nude art to fill a gap or some crap like that). To give an analogy - Its beyond posting photos of great leaders going to the toilet or posting photos of them having sex, in their biography books, just to ensure that a 'full picture' of their lives get represented. It is posting such photos in a newspaper without any other context and claiming "why not? leaders do have sex, they do go to the toilet. Why shouldn't I post photos to truly represent them". Yeah right! I know why you do it.

43 comments:

B o o. said...

agree on all point. but why are great leaders going to the toilet to have sex? adhu normal aa? ;)

Hawkeye said...

LOL

Anonymous said...

"This is not about art or freedom of speech. Completely not"

You write as if you did a PhD on "M.F.Hussain's mental state in the 1970's", the time when he painted all these 'controversial' work, the time when he was not that famous.

It is a debatable issue as to the responsibility that the artist owes to the society. In fact, a lot of people think the opposite. I am reminded of an interesting quote by Sam Raimi (the guy who did evil dead and spiderman movies) where he says that the purpose of art is to raise the barrier of what is 'acceptable' in society.

Coming back to your 'claim' that MF Hussain painted such work for 'marketing'-- i find that completely baseless. You can accuse him of irresponsibility (which in itself is debatable as outlined in the previous para), but it is not reasonable to accuse him of non-sincere art. (Btw, have you seen those pantings??)

If I were to guess, M.F.Hussain, if one were to deduce from his movies like 'gaja gamini' etc., the beauty of the female is one of his recurrent themes and he just painted those 'controversial paintings' in a moment of inspiration.

Hawkeye said...

i lost you after 'sam riami'

Alan Smithee said...

Amit Varma never gets tired of emphasizing an individual's right to decide for him/herself. And then proceeds to mock the individual if he/she is a follower of Baba Ramdev for instance.

Anonymous said...

alright, how many of you 'common men' know enough hindi to hold a dialogue with either Husain or Shiv Sena?

Hawkeye said...

anon2,

(asking because i don't want to jump to conclusions to soon)

where are you going with this?

Hawkeye said...

Alan,

:-). In continuation my my new theory on 'awareness' - I don't think he is aware that several things he has said actually work against his intentions. You should see his post on his 'wish list'

Vivek said...

Mr.Anon,

and he just painted those 'controversial paintings' in a moment of inspiration

So you are PhD in Hussain? That he did this in 70s when he had no money is very nice to know. Now I believe that he didn't do it for money but for art. Thankoo. now I'll have what you are smoking pliss.

Vivek said...

err... ok.

hawkeye was wise. I should have taken the hint at 'sam riami' as well..

Hawkeye said...

anonymous who feels people are asking him for money:

do you have a disease which makes you think people are asking you for money?

Anonymous said...

enough with this topic! can u just post on the tiger woods issue.

Anand said...

This anonymous guy is the best comment spammer in the world. I sense from the Force that a link to a "herbal enhancement" product is forthcoming from the gentleman.

Mukundhan said...

Vittutu poda Hawkeye. Innum konjam naal la kezham mandaya pottudum. That will put all controversies to rest.

Anonymous said...

I am still waiting for an answer.

Can you tell me why you seek my money to fund the legislation and arrest of people who draw boobs?

Gaurav said...

I am a free speech fundamentalist, and believe in no curbs on free speech. In principle. So no one, not Hussain, nor Danish cartoonists, should face any legal sanction or violent vigilante punishment.

That said, I am conflicted when it comes to Hussain. When it comes to defending him or supporting him, in the words of Stan Marsh, I'll stay out of it.

The simple reason is Hussain's hypocrisy and double standards. He acts like he is an artist defending his rights to express himself through his art, regardless of who it offends. He says he does not intend to offend, so he should be protected from offended religious folks. But he only wants protection from offending Hindus. He does not want to take the risk of offending Muslims and if he inadvertently does, he has been quick to apologize.

I refer to the controversy over a line in a song in his movie Minaxi: Tale of Three Cities. I don't remember the exact line, but whatever it was, offended some mullahs and they roused rabble. Hussain swiftly backtracked, apologizing, and either taking the song out of the movie or then pulling the movie out of theatres.

So if he "inadvertently" offends Hindus, he sticks to his guns, but if he "inadvertently" offends Muslims, he apologizes and backtracks faster than you can say 'fatwa'? That's two-face-ness of a level that even Aaron Eckhart couldn't display.

So in my eyes, although Hussain should not be punished or sanctioned for what he did, he should be at the very end of the list of people that free speech champions support.

Hawkeye said...

Gaurav,

thats exactly it. your reason for "staying out" is very similar to #2 and #3 in the post. In that this is not about free speech. What if I strongly believe that he is using religion (in this case hinduism) as a red-headed step-child, just flogging the crap out of it just to earn his $.

Isn't there enough 'room' to think that 'free speech' is giving him some kind of cover fire so that (a) to make his money (b) promote his fundamentalist agendas? Can't there be people who support free spech but discriminate instances where 'free speech' is being used as a loop hole?

To me Shiv Sena excercising free speech to subtly threaten people's lives is no different from hussain's use of free speech. But people hate former and approve the latter.

Anonymous said...

So he is using religion to further his career. And is hypocritical. Since when has those things been so wrong or novel?

Now, tell me Hawkeye, why should I care and why do you seek my money.

Hawkeye said...

i 'seek' you money?

Anonymous said...

Yes, you do, ignorant fuck.

By merely acquiescing the existing authority and putting forward an argument to place limits on those over whom that authority is extended, you are seeking money.

If you don't understand this, I suggest you go and ask that idiot who gave an umbrella lesson all your money back. I am a fair person and I am concerned about your money as much as I am of my own.

Hawkeye said...

LOL...

so if i didnt do anything you'd have your money. but if i forced govt to arrest hussain you'd lose money? is that so?

Anonymous said...

Sigh, now you don't just have to ask Civics teachers your money back but your Mathematics teachers too.

At this rate, I will be helping you build a pension fund.

Vivek said...

dei vennai anonymous,

Instead of pretending to hint that you actually have a point do get off your high pedestal and let us common men know how your money is taken away here. I don't understand how and I'd like to call your bluff.

Anonymous said...

Plus, I want to ask you, if you cannot distinguish positive affirmation from the several states that exist and are not negative affirmation, how do you manage life? This is way more interesting than boobs of Saraswati (or was it someone else?).

Now, let's play a game to demonstrate this. We can assign weights to a random equation based on your decisions of affirmation. Let it start a linear equation and every affirmation of yours can either add a variable or order -- that's your choice.

You start, state an simple equation.

Vivek said...

dude...stop pretending to be a wannabe scientist. Get off from this cryptic mode, stop hiding behind your high language and describe this in layman terms. Won't play your game. If you have a point you should be able to say it in simple terms.

Anonymous said...

Vivek, I asked a simple question. And refused participation in your scheme. Now I am the one on a pedestal and have to answer questions? Why don't you fucking shut up and let the moron who missed the point of duality[1] respond? He is the person who announced he is fucking stupid by saying the causation does not exist and therefore my point is irrelevant[comment with time stamp 11.32, Dec 3]

[1]: Before the ignorant fuck goes on to think this is some battle between Iyers and Iyengars, by duality I mean A(~x) = ~B(x)

Hawkeye said...

let me set this straight.

you are full of shit. you don't have a point. you are simply peethifying here with equations and other mumbo jumbo. have seen thooousands of commentors who pull this stunt. so stop trying to say something and actually say something. to follow vivek, i'd like to call your bluff

if hussain is arrested - you tell us in simple terms, who you will write the check out to and why - and then we will talk about duality and other philosophical crap.

Vivek said...

Duality. A (~X) = ~B(X). Swear words. Why don't you talk normally like the rest of us? All this peela is needless if you just wrote what you think I am not getting.

Anonymous said...

O Fuckity fuck! Hawkeye sucks!

That is exactly my point all along moron. I need not write a fucking check. That causation does NOT exist.

And the reason for the duality is your assertion of a non-existent causality. I did not start it, you did. What an unbelievable Moron!

Hawkeye said...

so you dont have a real point at all.. just some swear words mixed with things you found in barons word list.

pthooo

here is my response to you:

fuck fuck fuck

causality, duality, confidentiality, hyberbombality, morbombality..

fuck fuck fuck

as a result of saying the above, I clearly prove that you dont know anything.

Anonymous said...

Which part of 'your claim of causality is incorrect' do you not understand? Do you want me explain what your claim was? I thought I already did that. Despite it being your claim.

This is awesome!

Hawkeye said...

yes.yes. i am sure it is very awesome to you as long you are thinking in words that are still to make it to the dictionary. let us see its awesomeness outside of your head.

you explain in layman terms what i am supposed to have said and what you want to say etc etc..

Anonymous said...

So, let me get this straight, I am here to explain to you what you told me?

Vivek said...

LOL so calling the bluff was right. anon boy didn't have anything to say. just another peela anonymous

Rasta said...

ada paavi! for a while I thought this anon had a great point that I wasn't seeing. Now seeing his latest comment... Kadasila all burudaavaa? A little pathetic though...using high funda words and all.

Hawkeye said...

concordantly

Chandroo said...

:-) (I thought you didn't watch MTV).

vis-a-vis!

Hawkeye said...

concomitantly...

I too Peter Engliss said...

duality

causality.

acquiese

ackyosentif

aiyoo.. amma

i know the englipis..

Anonymous said...

What bluff was called?

I have said it in layman terms. That you claimed a causality and that does not exist.Surely, that's layman in my world, if you want stupidman terms, I am sorry.

Fucking Lord, you actually think you have a point and I don't!

Anonymous said...

Anyway, if you still want an explanation, here goes: the argument that you make assumes the existing system of authority. That system of authority is a governance system that taxes people and in theory holds everyone in equal stead. It is therefore an inalienable part of such governance structures that they have to be governed from the perspective of least common denominators. Which is why there was a certain Thomas Jefferson who wrote a treatise on the said topic, and held "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual"

He goes on to argue that the rights of the individual are sacrosanct and that anything that the collective authority does should be only when an absolute intersection of all concerned is achieved. In other words, a participation in the structure is in essence an act of minimality since the threat of default power looms large.

Fast forward that to 2009 and artistic/ pornographic/ whatever expression in a liberal/chaotic/banana/ anything else democracy. The threat of default participation is all the more present in our circumstances than in 1780s in America. It's impossible for me to say I will not pay taxes and refuse participation in the system of governance because rightly or wrongly, it has become all encompassing and there is no frontier to go to now. In such a scenario, the least common denominator that Jefferson talked about is not philosophical abstraction but an actual practical impediment. In asking that the state do X, you are essentially asking my participation in it. If that X is something that is essential to survival -- such as say drinking water etc, you can claim what is survival clause and say, my participation is not voluntary in such a scenario as it's essentially a zero sum game. However offensive/ hypocritical you find the use/abuse of religion and other such polarizing issues, the denomination of survival clause does not apply to them in that least common sense. In essence, you are holding democracy as a rule of majority against the constitutional republic which is what a modern state is meant to be. You may yet disagree with this and try to impose your idea of right and wrong -- but that in essence is seeking my money to do what I do not want.

That is what the objection to your stupid Civics teacher is. Now, let's come to the mathematics teachers next.

Hawkeye said...

so finally its a "i also pay taxes" oosi pona argument said in the most roundabout way imaginable. .. several times when you commented, i dismissed this as a theory thinking "no.. even he can't be that stupid"

pthoo..

good that you comment as anonymous. Otherwise It would be so freakin' embarasing for your "great" reputation.

Anonymous said...

If you think this is a 'I pay taxes' argument, okay!

Plus, we have not come to causation yet.