I Am Writing with a Number of Purposes. First, I Want to Tell You Something About My Time

Home

I am writing with a number of purposes. First, I want to tell you something about my time off from work. Secondly, to address some things you said about me recently. Finally, to appreciate you as a person and as my brother

I enjoyed much about my vacation – the usual things: how wonderful and beautiful the mountains are; how healthy it is to be there – physically; how simply being in ‘nature’ is transformative and one slowly becomes aware of the strengths of one’s own body, how the perception slowly becomes attuned and sharpened; how I invariably get inspiration there: I think I have had nearly all my major inspiration in the mountains – ideas of course, but also when I seem stuck in some aspect of life; simple fun – things that we tend to not be aware of in the modern world including the fact that forty hours or more of work a week, even when exhilarating is numbing to some real aspects of who and what we are and that this goes unnoticed because we may have never been aware of it in the first place since we may have not ever experienced it; most of all regarding the former point is the quality of being – in many ‘primitive’ societies which, only in extreme times or when displaced by modern technological societies become economically impoverished, the average number of hours of work done a week, I read once, is eighteen and there is more time to appreciate the world and other people; I invariably get irritated in movies where the husband is some workaholic firefighter and the wife threatens to leave because she is not getting enough attention and I think, ‘stop moaning, it’s the dedication of such people that makes the world a better place – but actually the wife has a point: it is in human relationships, as one important example, that the world is already a better place and does not need improvement; I recognize that I am not perfect in this area and that the values implied are values and that I am beginning to ramble; so here I am in the last week of my time off, not looking to going back to work but also looking forward to it because it means dealing with my various concerns… and what I have decided to do with this week is to have simple fun, to not plan to go anywhere but perhaps just hang around, perhaps look up a friend, perhaps take off without plan (I’m thinking of Reno.) I have lost 10 pounds of weight and have discovered or rediscovered that I am not as strong as I used to be and this year, walking 11 miles with a 50-60 pound pack put some stress on my left knee. I am feeling pleased with that knee today since it has been just three days since and it is already recovering well; so, I am not yet totally decrepit

The second point (Microsoft Word does not like this incomplete sentence.) I perceived certain attitudes in you toward me in a recent phone conversation, the one where you said, ‘I know this might irritate you, but I think you’ve lost confidence,’ and then you said something about not getting an American passport yet. I know you said that you weren’t sure but my perception arises in part because of what seems to me to be a pattern of negative interpretation (the rapidity of your response to the question of the passport, the invariably gloomy view regarding job possibilities, and the fact explained below that you did not actually answer the question that I asked which was something like ‘Do you know what I am doing with my life?’ but, instead, addressed something like ‘Do you know why I am not doing certain things with my life?’ which, though not unrelated, is not what I asked or equivalent to it.) I know that I may be jumping to wrong conclusions and therefore I apologize in advance; however, the perception remains although it is not entrenched or anything like that. Now, I don’t object to your having an attitude (in addition to the fact that such objection would be stupid) because whatever that attitude may be it, no doubt, reflects your perception of what is true. This does not mean that I should like the attitude or agree with it although, as a source of input, it may well be valuable and, even when I disagree or don’t like it; I have often found the opinions of others to be very useful. Still, since I have some disagreement with what I perceive, I think I should attempt to state my own perceptions without expecting you to change your views but while certainly hoping to influence them. This is especially important to me since you are my brother and I care for you and love you at least as much as I do anyone else; and that, therefore, your opinions are important not only as opinions of me but also as reflecting the quality of our relationship

This paragraph is an aside. Because it is self-referential, the first sentence of the previous paragraph reminds me of the following question. You are no doubt aware of the famous paradoxical sentence ‘This sentence is false.’ What reflections do you have regarding the similar sentence, ‘This sentence is true.’? Anyway, the second example shows that it is not self-reference alone that leads to the kind of paradox in question here. What is it, then, that is the source of paradox? The literature abounds with the suggestion that there is no adequate resolution to date of such paradoxes. Suppose that there are ten planets. The statement, ‘Planet eleven is green.’ is true if all such statements are either true or false because it is not false. However, then ‘Planet eleven is blue.’ is also true and this is paradoxical as well (this ‘paradox’ is fuzzy in its formulation but still interesting because it is illuminating of the nature of the kind of paradox in question)

… I am aware that I have faults but lack of perception regarding myself is not one of them even though I am sure that I may have blind spots. I have not ever thought that I am supremely confident as a person but I do not think I have lost confidence about my ability to seek alternative work. I agree with your perceptions of the job market and the probable doubts of prospective employers; however, I do not think those concerns to be absolute in nature and this is one area in which I probably have more confidence than I have had. I suspect that the doubts regarding prospective employers would be more important in England and India which are more conservative in some ways. I have always been good at interviewing, at least in academic jobs, and I think that I will still do well in interviews and still have the power to change doubt into enthusiasm. Where I lack confidence is that I will enjoy an engineering position whether teaching or otherwise because it has never been my passion although I have enjoyed some of its aspects. However, the interest in any academic endeavor pales in comparison to the studies and research with which I have been engaged for about fourteen of the last twenty years. My interest in an engineering position is almost solely in the potential for more money and to avoid some of the things I don’t like about my present work. However, since I do not bring work home, my present work has allowed me to be involved in what I really enjoy and that has meant more to me than any other pursuit. What I have been able to do is something I only dreamed of while an engineering student and later while teaching

… I should say something about my present situation. The first thing is that happiness itself is not my overt motive. I am not sure how this concern with happiness even emerged but I think it had to do with mum and dad going on (I think that ‘moaning’ might not be an exaggeration) about how unhappy I must be. This was a theme for many years and covered both relationships and work. It probably had its origins in my conflict with them which made me angry and, thus this happiness thing arose ‘poor chap’ etc. which was rather oblivious to the fact that, in my last two years at St. Xavier’s and at III, I was supremely happy (except for the horribly taught and dull practical course work; the hours of drafting which in ME years four and five was three hours every weekday afternoon,) especially when left alone. My actual motives have always been what I am passionate about and these things are people, ideas and nature and when I can’t be involved with ideas (and not just the Head of the Department of Naval Architecture’s ideas of what ideas are) I have never been the happiest – so I suppose that ‘happiness’ is an indirect motive and this lack of ideas in themselves is what concerns me about an engineering position and would concern me even about a position in philosophy (in most departments you are expected to work on a kind of philosophy despite contrary incantations.) The second thing I want to say is about what I have achieved in the area of ideas. Of course, my opinion of my self may be not worth much. However, it depends on how it is intended. If it is said in the sense of ‘I am 100% sure and will consider no criticism’ then it is surely suspect. If it is said as, this my estimate and I accept reservation because I have my own as well, and I accept reasonable criticism because it may be both valid and helpful then it is, at least, less suspect. All that said, here is that opinion. Actually, what I have been involved in is not just the ideas. Some questions I have asked are ‘What is it possible for any being (individual) especially a human being to realize?’ ‘Of these possibilities, what are feasible and desirable?’ (Plenty of room there for an individual life to play out.) The answer to these questions is in the booklet that I sent you so I will not repeat it here (a huge amount of territory has been covered in answering these questions and even in realizing that they were the questions that I might ask.) Having answered these question, the next question is how confident am I in my answers? Therefore, the answers continue to receive criticism. Additionally, to support the answers, and due also to intrinsic interest, I have been and want to investigate ‘transformation’ i.e. realization in life itself. This process is begun and is one thing I was trying to do on my vacation but I realize that six weeks is not enough and therefore I must either attempt to get an extended period of time off or (andor) attempt to carry forward the project while sustaining my job. At some point in the future (perhaps this will remain a dream) I hope to engage a group of people in this endeavor – something vaguely like a ‘research institute’ which would not just be involved in ideas etc. but also in ‘application.’ What I have done in ‘transformation’ is only a beginning even though interesting. Some of the ideas from Indian Philosophy (Bhagavad Gita and its ‘four ways of Yoga’) are interesting but I think they are limited; I have investigated many other systems for what may be useful. (One thing to be concerned about is that the typical western academic is going to raise eyebrows at things like Yoga.) Anyway, my estimate of the ‘transformation’ phase is that, so far, it is in its beginning stages. My estimate of the ideas is not so limited and here I think I have gone beyond anything that I have read. The booklet I sent you is limited treatment of the potential for application of the main ideas and that is partly because the core developments are still quite recent (2003.) I have been working out the details and in these details the power of the developments continues to be revealed. However, even in the booklet, there are what amount to proofs that it is not possible to go beyond the depth plumbed in the core ideas; the treatment of the proofs will be much improved and more explicitly stated (because I see the structure more clearly and I recognize them better for what they are.) I might mention two examples of ‘depth.’ Substance ontology, the attempt to explain the variety of the world in terms of simple unchanging things (and so add clarity to the understanding of the world) has been a preoccupation, in one form or other, since the beginning of western philosophy. The preoccupation is not idle for the style of thinking made the development of the conceptual side of modern science (at least) more likely. However, substance ontology is also the source of a number of fairly deep philosophical muddles that has caused many modern philosophers reject systematic philosophy altogether. In my work, I have resolved the problem of substance ontology (and consequently the muddles) by showing that a foundation for all being (whatever there is in the entire universe outside of which, by definition, there is no thing) requires no substance and, in explanatory terms, requires no infinite regress (as is generally thought to be necessary if there are to be no undefined terms.) Another example is what has been called the ‘fundamental problem of metaphysics’ which is how could something come out of nothingness which is generally regarded as unsolved (some people have called it insoluble and constitutively refractory to human minds.) In terms of my thought this problem and as the more interesting problem of how or why should sentience arise out of nothingness have trivial solutions. Anyway, even though these two examples are prime ones, they are a minute fraction of the system of ‘logic’ and application. Now, many years ago (I wrote about this in the long letter that I sent mum and dad in 1996) I had thought through the choices that I was making with my life and I knew that those choices were right for me even I should never have any significant success in thought (for success cannot be predicted; and if ideas are important then it is important to work on them.) In terms of my own values, then (and I do not think that everyone should live in these terms) my life, as I have chosen it to be, is the most significant thing I can do – even without any success (meaning intrinsic success and not recognition, which of course, I would like very much.) When I asked you if you knew what I was trying to do with my life, it is this that I wanted to explain because it is this that I wanted you to know

You asked me once if my thought / work is religious in nature and cited my use of the word ‘being’ as illustration. That word has been used in numerous ways by philosophers with a ‘secular’ interest (Aristotle, Sartre, Heidegger) as well as philosophically oriented theologians. My use of the word is that it is, as I use it, the most basic of ‘things.’ At the fundamental level, there is nothing specifically religious or non-religious about ‘being’ except for one thing. If the purpose of the use of ‘being’ is fundamental then, insofar as religion is about truth, there must be overlap between my thought and that of religion even if there is no religious intent. In fact the overlap would be necessary (so far as religion is about truth) because I do not think that there are two worlds the spiritual and the mundane, the worlds spoken of in religion and the world of economics and physics texts. As far as truth is concerned there is one world. Thus even if I were to agree with Plato that there are ‘forms’ I cannot agree with ‘Platonic Idealism’ in which there is a separate world of ideal forms. Religion is problematic for me in a number of ways. It is a fact that ‘faith’ has been used as the reason for untold cruelty (the crusades) for abuse and personal gain (the history of the Church in Europe and the Brahmins in India) and in holding down the ‘masses’ in ignorance. However, ‘reason’ is used similarly ‘if you don’t join us in the war against terrorism then you must be against us’ and, by implication, against what is decent. There is also much good in religion as religion especially when tolerant and therefore to the exception of intolerant fundamentalism. And not just good but also beauty: in music, in cathedrals… In addition to these ideal concerns, there are also practical ones. You cannot tell believers that their beliefs don’t make sense for they are not only about truth but also about human values and social bonding expressed in e.g. mythic terms. Thus, religion constitutes social fabric and an abrupt change would / might disrupt faith based communities; and this might well be among the reasons that (some) human beings are susceptible to delusional suggestion. However, are all such suggestions delusional? If there is a story that Christ rose from the dead what is the power of that story besides circular self-justification with the implied appeal that, in the rising from the dead, there must be fundamental power? The obvious ‘truth’ is that we do not know the true nature of death: what lies beyond. Many people conclude from science, reason, common sense that nothing lies beyond death but that is not a rational conclusion. The only real things that science etc. say, with necessity, about the nature of death is nothing. Practically, some one may say ‘but, Anil, when you’re dead you’re obviously dead and all this is wishful thinking.’ What response may there be? The argument from wishful thinking may explain someone’s reason to want to believe but it does nothing for proof for or against. Is there any logic to ‘rising from the dead?’ Well I do not even want to prove that Christ did rise from the dead but it is simply true that (1) science is not complete and even if it were we would not know its entire implications, (2) there is no logical contradiction in the idea of ‘rising from the dead’ unless ‘dead’ is defined as that from which there is no return – however such definition is empirical (or based in science that is empirical) and not logical and therefore there is no logical contradiction. Anyway there are much stronger arguments regarding the actual possibility that are in the booklet and that have been strengthened in my recent thought. This does not mean that I have no doubts about the arguments but, if you were to read them (they might be a little obscure in the booklet because I was groping at the time that I wrote it) you might notice their force that I have described as similar to encounter with an alien landscape: one is discovering what is already there and not creating. These thoughts do something but not much to dispel my conflict regarding a stand on religion and I find it interesting / fascinating / odd that people find it easy to take a stand – rigidly pro and rigidly con. There remains a basic problem: good or bad, right or wrong, religion is a powerful force in the modern world and even if one thinks religion is evil what is one’s response to be? I think that, regardless of their behavior, disrespect for believers and rigid adherence to one’s e.g. liberal point of view (common even if a contradiction) is not much better as a practical solution to the problems presented by mass esoteric faith than were the crusades. I think that, first, respect is required. It is required for exactly the same reason that it is required in any conflict – that the other will not feel minimized. But what is respect if it is not a lack of rigid attachment to one’s own attitudes (including reason and rationality in which connection Herbert Simon’s concept of bounded rationality and consequences there from are interesting) and a true attempt to see what is true about what one believes is false?) Once again, I am not trying to paint a picture of myself as tolerant but only that tolerance is an ideal. Anyway, tolerance is a first step that ordinary people and leaders in the liberal / secular world might try to practice. The issue of fundamentalism is everywhere and everywhere it is rising; and everywhere there appear to be threats to freedom. But what is the correct response? I think the first response is tolerance but there are clear limits to that; however real tolerance is inside the individual and then in its manifestation; and not even fake tolerance is our first response. I feel I am repeating trivialities. I remind myself that the purpose is not to be a genius but to find solutions even if trivial and simple. I think it is for this approach, however limited, that I have been able to keep fundamentalist friends and to be able to hold discussion and debate (and learn from it.) The tolerance should be active / seeking and not passive / waiting and even though outcomes are sought the approach should also be its own ‘reward.’ And it is not just America and Americans respecting Iran and Iranians etc but (in its aim) one of us mutually respecting one another in similarity and difference. One thought that I have had is that my ‘Theory of Being’ may be a basis for ‘bridging’ among faith and for a rewriting of the texts (scriptures) – but that would take someone with a more literary bent than I have and have been thinking of mentioning this to a friend who appears to have an interest in my work. I am not sure how much energy to put into this for it is not my first interest but it does seem to be one practical possibility. In the end I am not particularly sanguine of success but not confident of failure altogether