Beatnik in the East

I have been reading into the Beat Generation writers especially Ginsberg and Kerouac. I am fascinated by their leanings towards the Counter Culture movement, their passion to experiment with drugs and achieve liberation through altered states of consciousness, their echo for free libidinal revolution and their offers for nonviolence and peace. However what I can’t digest is their veering towards Eastern Religions and their morbid attraction for their rites and cults. The steering of their ships to Eastern mysticism is considered by me as their myopic fascination with the ecstasy of the East as Western foreign outsiders. Though I am living in the East, my mind has been brought up in the liberal Hellenic culture of the West. Language, Philosophy, Art and Culture of the West has deeply fascinated me and inspires my mind to innovate and create fictions, poetry and philosophy. I, being an Easterner live in a culture that’s highly conservative, orthodox and ritualistic. None of the devotees of Eastern Religions would feel to tempted to adopt, follow the patterns of life and living adopted by the Beatniks. My South Asian Experience with Eastern mysticism had been an infliction of wound on my being. Hinduism or Buddhism and its devotees in East do not follow it as the BEATNIKS did. Beatnik adoption of Hindu or Buddhist mysticism would be blasphemy for religious devotees of the East. Yes, I will try to live the ideal of Nietzsche’s Dionysian element of rhythm and ecstasy. The Philosophers of the West have inspired me to be a creative being and embrace a living of creative hedonism.



Convenientializm a post post modern Philosophy

Convenientializm is a post post modern, post post structural Philsophy. Convenientializm in a nut shell means: anything is everything and everything as a semantic democracy and can mean all things or a nothing. I have developed some isms for convenientializm which I have already used in my earlier quodlibetical discussions.
From a Binary Divide to an eclecticism of Binary Fusion
The concept of Binary divide was propounded by Jacque Derrida, the guru of Deconstruction. It means in the History of Western Metaphysical tradition terms are explicated by privileging certain concepts and in the process marginalize others. This in my conception is linguicide (coming from lingual and killing). For example God was privileged as light, virtue, sinless while the Devil was marginalized as darkness, evil, covetousness, gluttony, fornication and all vices. Another example of Binary divide from Politics would be the privileging of the Bourgeoisie Capitalist and the marginalizing of the working class the Proletariat. What Derrida says is that the stability of language is defined by privileging of certain terms and by the marginalization of other terms. Derrida also claims that language is prone to structural inconsistencies.
Here, from the concept of Binary divide, I have developed a new conception called as Binary Fusion. In the conception of Binary fusion, the terms used attain neither a privilege nor a marginalization but a fusion which can be called as lexical syncretism of a democracy.
For example: let’s take the example of the word Human. Human privileges the man and demeans the woman. I have made an effort to binary-fuse the word. I have binary-fused the word into hu/WO/man. In hu/WO/man both terms attain a semantic cognition of being in democratic recognition. Another binary-fused word would be WO/man. Let’s apply binary fusion to the word colored. Colored has derogatory connotations in lexicography and as a derogatory term privileges the whites and marginalizes the Blacks and the Asians. If we Binary-fuse the word colored it would have racial connotation of being all encompassing. Colored as a racial democracy of an all encompassing term would mean Americanness, Asianess, Africaness, Austra-NewZealandness. Thus the word colored would become an appropriation of semantics in the Philosophy of democracy.


Phenomenological Ontology
The Philosopher Martin Heidegger has left the term (BEING) in a solipsistic conundrum, leaving being or Dasien as being historically conditioned and prone to temporality. Heidegger has not been able to provide a successful semantic appropriation of meaning to Dasien or Being. He said being is the throwness of being to history and time. The meaning of Being was later on taken up by the Existential Philosopher Sartre who defined being as a being-in-it-self (primary consciousness of being), being for itself (being directing its consciousness towards things, attitudes, situations or experiences). I would like to develop a new concept of being and I call the process of being not being but (UNBEING). We become an (UNBEING) when we go through a process of experience or knowing. Being makes us (UNBEING) as a processual ontology. (UNBEING) enters the structure of consciousness (phenomenology) as a process. We are always in the process of making being an (UNBEING). This is called the processual ontology of being. In the post post modern, structuralist era how can we make (UNBEING) creative, leading to a sybarite triumph of individuality? Here, I would also like to use post-structural psychoanalytic terms: the terms used by Freud, the ID, EGO and the Super Ego. The post-structural psychoanalyst Lacan propounds that there is no fixed stability of the self. The self has to do a tight-rope-walking between the needs of the ID, the conditioning of the EGO and the Holy Father Laws which impinge and punish the ID and the EGO for legal trespasses. A creative way for becoming the process of (UNBEING) would be, when we undergo the experience of (unbeing) we should gratify the ID, deify the EGO and Subvert the SUPER EGO for being a sybarite, for our individuality to triumph. I would also like to explain one more concept of being. I am stripping transcendence of its metaphysical and theological moorings. When we go through the process of (UNBEING), we are knowing, feeling, thinking, willing or experiencing. This processual aspect of UNBEING is called transcendence. Transcendence of UNBEING can be cathartic, perceptory and cognitory.


Rapturation of Being
Rapturation of being has a strong music -muscle of being erotically connoted. Rapturation of being is an intra-poetic-mytho-subjective experience when our mind becomes tremulous with experiential catharsis. Rapturation of being can also be Platono-Rapturation. An example of Platono-Rapturation would be the hyperbolic excitement I would get when I unravel a writer’s trope. It would also be a pleasure felt when I watch Picasso’s Guernica.


Demogeocracy would be the transformation of the United Nations into a conceptuality of oneness. Democracy would become open to the processes of dialogism (constructive dialogues) and reduction of authoritarian discourses. In a Demogeocracy the mad greed to own, possess, and dominate would be reduced. For example, China’s Ego Maniacal pride to own Tibet would become a democratic sublimation and China would autonomously give nation-hood-status to Tibet as being possessors of an ancient religion and culture. In a Demogeocracy the fanatic bend of Islam should be subverted through liberal reinterpretation of the Quran and Westernized proselytization as Liberal Islam. A successful Demogeocracy would enable the nations to reduce money spent on defense, arms and security. A demogeocracy should banish passports and visas and allow its global citizens to travel freely with an identity card issued by the United Nations.

Philosophy of Utiloracy and Bourgeolariat
In the philosophy of convenientializm Utiloracy and Bourgeolariat are economic terms. Money has to attain a function of Utiloracy that is it should be freed from competent-capability-ownership to a democratic distribution. The Bourgeolariat is a combination of Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. There should be only one class of people the Bourgeolariat who have democratic access to purchasing power. If this is accomplished then ataraxia or eudemonism would not be a fantasy but an actuality. The Kingdom of God as proclaimed by Liberation theology could be accomplished on earth as a Demotopia.


Analysis of Toynbee’s Study of World History

Arnold Toynbee is a world famous historian known for his penetrating insight into civilizations of the world. In his epoch making work: A study of World History, he does not consider civilization as discrete entities but views them as a continuum. In his analysis of civilizations he has bifurcated them into Egyptian, Hellenic, Chinese and contemporary civilizations.

The Egyptian civilization was marked by the emergence of Kingship and large class of serfs. It was basically an agrarian civilization. The most significant contribution of the Egyptians was the invention of writing. Religion in ancient Egypt was polytheistic. The systematic idea of a state evolved in ancient Egypt. Another significant contribution of the Egyptians was the Pyramids. Culturally and anthropologically speaking the Egyptians were an ethnic bourgeoisie, a ruling aristocracy embedded in cultic rituals, exploiting the weaker sections of the society. The Egyptian civilization also saw the Diaspora of the Jews into Egypt. Looking at Egyptian civilization we can interpret that it was civilization canonized by monarchs, satiated in excess catharsis and stimulated by the ecumenism of a cosmopolitan culture. The Egyptian civilization is noted for its architecture. Ancient Egypt bore the semblances of a religious and cultural syncretism.
The Hellenic culture on the other side saw the emergence of art, literature, philosophy and above all democracy. The great Philosophers of Greece were Plato Socrates and Aristotle. The Hellenic gift to the contemporary world was the gift of democracy. The Iliad and the Odyssey were epic poems written by the Greek poet Homer. In ancient Greece there was a shift from a religious attitude to a philosophical speculation. Ancient Greece also laid the foundations of modern science. Athens flourished because it was democracy. Philosophically speaking Greek civilization is marked by a mental Diaspora of historicity caught up in the eclectic balance of pristine culture in the throes of evolution.

Next I would like to analyze the modern world. The modern world went through a series of world wars. The modern world also saw the emergence of two contrasting isms Communism and Capitalism. It was during this time that large parts of Africa and Asia were colonies. The modern world also saw the rise of dictatorships which paved the way for the horrendous holocaust. The modern world also saw the rise of the press. Then there developed the rise of the Cold War. There was also the development of space journeys and nuclear missiles. The television became a personalized czar at home. Artistic movements like impressionism and surrealism gave a new lease of life to individuality.

The postmodern society is quite different from earlier civilizations. It was marked by the evolution of the internet. Media became a personalized entity. There was also the emergence of multinational corporations and patent rights. There was also the rise of gay culture. The postmodern society saw the demise of communism and the bipolarization of the world. The postmodern era is also characterized by the emergence of Islamic fundamentalism. Many of the colonies of Africa and Asia were decolonized. The postmodern society also saw the breakup of the nuclear family and the rise of gay marriages. Philosophy was characterized by disintegration and fragmentation. Postmodernism promoted nihilism and anarchy. The idea of what constitutes individuality became a question mark.

Trump’s Enigmatic Hand Symbolism

I am not a conspiracy buff. As I was randomly searching links on Trunk’s links to secret societies, I could come up with no conclusive evidence. However as I go through his hand gestures, I am convinced to think that they are merely outward projections of a power complex. Are they? Or are they done deliberately? I love the catharsis of conspiracy in speculative mania. There’s secretive aura of an eerie halo. Does it portray something as evil or sinister? Or are they random acts of a subconscious expression of super-confidence.


Let’s analyze the first of these hand symbols. Is it a cunning manipulation of the mark of the beast 666, like the one of Google Chrome (so innocently deceptive) or it is merely an ostentatious display of an ego boost? Even I have used it unknowingly to show that something is excellent. I think Trump is a practicing Christian and he though no Saint (ha ha ha) has appointed Christians (Mike Pence conducts Christian classes for all White House and CIA Staff) mostly in his cabinet. I honestly think that he deserves a fair share of innocence as that being Biblical: to be cunning as the Serpent and to be Innocent as the Dove. Is he or is he a maverick with the occult deification of the Illuminati and Satanism.


The second of his hand gestures with Vladimir Putin clearly on the down side shows the Pyramid (an inverted triangle which is also Satanic). I would like to use the Jews who were in Egyptian captivity who learned the mastery of skills especially architecture from them. Israel is a nation, all of Abraham’s real descendents born out of womb of Sarah and who are the most traumatized people. But their exile made them assimilate the best and translate that into a modern Israel all flowing with milk and honey. Is Trump trying to depict the pyramid as the completion of the unfinished one on the 1$ Bill. The black (bit of his pant seen through the pyramid) behind the pyramid can be taken as the all Seeing Eye. Christ was cleverer than the Masons and wiser when he asked his disciple to take the coin from the fish mouth and pay taxes to Caesar. Is Trump trying to tell Putin: Give unto Caesar what is his and give unto me (Christ) what is mine?

God Bless America

Confessions of a Literary Philosophical and Christian Self

I was reading into the institution of marriage which started from ancient Egypt, though the etymological derivation of marriage is Latin which is Latin (maritare), meaning to provide with a husband or wife. Today’s postmodern societies have come to encompass marriage of the identical gender as being perfectly normative. This goes against the Biblical concept that prurience of the same sex is sin and transgression. But again in the Bible it is clear that ‘Judge ye not the speck in another’s eye when you have a speck in your own eyes.’ The wrath of God is clear on the retribution of Sodom and Gomorrah. Yes sodomy has ironically its etymology from there. There are also other marriages like polygamy which again is bifurcated into polygyny (keeping more than one wife which is common in Muslim cultures) and polyandry (a wife having more than one husband), a phenomenon rarely to be seen. Thus marriage is an institutional process guaranteed by the sanction and consent of the society.

When there is the institution of marriage, there is also violation of the moral code and that is adultery and fornication. Though it occurs in most societies adultery is a serious crime in Muslim cultures and the penalty is death by stoning. Western democracies have adopted a lenient and permissive view to adultery. However the Christian condemnation of adultery is sin and violation of the moral law. It is ironic that heterosexuality is blatantly permissive in Western democracies while the same society looks with sinister sarcasm and limited acceptance of sexuality of the same gender. The Western media is awesome with the sleaze of sensationalism when celebrities commit adultery and get discovered. This is virulently true of Clinton and Monica. I admit that Hillary has been a gem in acceptance, reconciliation and forgiveness.

Next, I would like to offer a commentary on gay and lesbian prurience. The earliest known records are from Greece and Rome. We have lesbian poems written by the poetess Sappho celebrating lesbian promiscuity. There are also many artistic illustrations showing the same in blatant display. In postmodern societies they have become openly expressive and symbolic with obsessive compulsion of being an obsession as gay culture. Some gay writers go to the malfeasant extent of questioning the very idea of gender being determined by biology. For them gender is a conception produced by History. Yeah my cute lesbians: it’s not a culture shock to be butch or for that matter to role play as the femme. At least from the reproductive point of view there has to be biology for gender. But again in today’s advanced medical and technological society one can opt for sex change. Then again comes the question of trans-gender who forms miniscule of the population. The Biblical view is that it is violation for it is said: they gave up their own bodies to their lust: men with men and women with women. And God gave them up to their reprobate minds. But seeing God in a more democratic way: God loves the sinner and not the sin and grace is acceptance of the divine and forgiveness of carnality. I am not sure whether one can be a gay Christian or for that matter a Christian heterosexual. Yes, one can repent and seek forgiveness. Christ was poignant in his love for Mary Magdalene. All he said was: ‘woman sin no more’.

I was also searching for literature on lesbian voyeurism in  men. The lust of the eye is a term used by St. Paul. To my surprise there exists very scant literature on the topic. I would like to use Laura Mulvey’s scopophila (meaning pleasure of the erotic gaze. Freud becomes a stumbling block because this term neither encompasses the Oedipus nor the Electra complex. It is an emotional, intellectual, and psychological complex born with appetite for a sensual catharsis. Her love is poetry of Eros, passionate, erotic, sublime forcing the tempter into a kind of narcissistic psycho-sexual pleasure. She makes passionate poems and lyric verse out of her.  I seek solace that I will become a vessel yielded to grace and succumb my flesh to the design of the divine. May God grant me reprieve. Amen!


Analysis of the Space of Literature by Maurice Blanchot


Maurice Blanchot though being a heavy weight of Literature is largely ignored by the mainstream public due to the dense obscurity of his work. Blanchot’s literature remains largely ornamental like a piece of Baroque opera with strands of philosophy running through it. I would like to discuss the thoughts that I came through while reading his magnum opus: The Space of Literature.

Maurice Blanchot begins his work be characterizing Writing as Solitude. What is solitude in everyday life? It means an inner calm of tranquility. It is questionable to ask whether a writer writes out of solitude or excitement. He quotes Rilke: ‘I haven’t produced a single work: my solitude has engulfed me’. Why can’t the writer be agitated when he is writing his work? I am sure that Nietzsche wrote: Thus spoke Zarathustra while undergoing bouts of insanity. A Freudian ID gets provoked into the necessity of writing. Even mystics when they meditate are never in solitude. There are in a state of deep contemplation. One can also write out of the passion to write but one can never be in solitude when one is in a state of writing. When one is in the process of writing, one gravitates to the center of meaning. So I would like to reformulate Blanchot’s solitude as excitement, agitation, passion and contemplation. The mind can never be in solitude.

Again Blanchot goes on to say that a writer never knows whether his work is finished or not. In one sense it is true and in another sense it is not. Any work of Literature is only partial does not display art to sense of completion. But then again in a literary work, there’s a beginning and an ending. Let’s take an example of Ulysses by James Joyce. The novel running into eight hundred pages and depicts twelve hours of person’s life mainly Bloom, Stephen and Molly. There is a beginning and an ending to the work. Blanchot is partially right when he says that no work of art is complete. A work of art has got only degrees of perfection. Similarly Blanchot also mentions that a reader enters into solitude while encountering a work. Readers of pulp fiction are causal readers. The work of a serious reader is marked by the phenomenology of reading. The mind of a serious reader works as an inter-textual machine. Reading interferes with what has been read in the past. The ontology of existentialism, the autobiographical possession of the reader comes into play while reading. There is perfect reading but there are only imperfect interpretations.

It’s through an absence that word being of writer comes into existence. I would like to refute this statement by saying that writing is affirmation of presence, a saturation of it. Being is pronounced into the becoming of meaning. In writing there’s indulgence of the meaning of being. Writing is excess of being. Presence of being is an affirmation for a writer.

Again he goes on to say that a writer never reads his or her work. That can be true to some extent. Would a writer really enjoying editing his or work?  A writer does not function as a reader. The writer merely proof reads his or her work.

For a writer, a word is something that cannot be mastered. How could that be the case? A writer is a lingual-maniac. He finds new usages for pre-existing ones. He or she also creates new words: for example neologisms. A writer invents tropes of language. How can this be possible without mastery? Writing is not sterile but active and dynamic.

To write is to break the bond between the word and the self. I would like to say that writing is a catharsis. The bond between writing, the word, and the self is one of unison. Writing is akin to having sexual intercourse. The self and the word are bonded to a writer.

The writer belongs to a language that no one speaks. Yes, writing is inventive and seeks new paradigms of a discovery of meaning. Tropes belong to the language of nascence and newness. Writing is a process of self discovery.

When we admire the tone of the work, we are not referring to style or virtues of the language but to a silence. Blanchot is not sure about what this silence is. We are in fascination and catharsis when we unveil the imagery used by a writer. There is intellectual and emotional gratification. We do not encounter the work in silence.

What is the journal? It is not romantic, not essentially confessional. It is the writer when he or she is not writing. I feel that Blanchot is being vague there. Again he goes on to say that a journal is written out of fear and anguish. The writing of the journal is no longer historical. Romanticism has acquired new shades of meaning in blog writing. Taste, art and culture are all romanticized by bloggers undergoing a new experience. As Wordsworth has said ‘poetry is the spontaneous overflow of feeling’. To be romantic is to be in state of mind that’s in passion. Writing a journal can also be confessional. To be confessional is to be passionate and expressive. My writing on adultery is confessional. It is wrong to say that a journal is not historical. For example let’s take Ann Frank. Ann Frank is a passionate outburst of the oppressions that she encountered during a Nazi regime. Thus a journal can be confessional, romantic and historical.

To write is to surrender to time’s absence. I would like to disagree with the statement. Time in writing flows as streams of consciousness.   Time is reflective and contemplative when the writer engages in writing. Writing cannot be marked by the absence of time.

Fascination is solitude’s gaze. To write is to let fascination rule the language. The gaze of the writer could be a sexual, one; it could also be subjective, philosophical, materialistic and transcendental. The gaze is intentional and is borne out the repressed in the ID.

Again he quotes Mallarme: ‘When I write into verse, I encounter nothingness, an absence of God and my own death. It is questionable to ask Blanchot, how negation can enter the realm of writing. Negation is nihilism, a negative affirmation when something positive does not happen. Writing is self proclaiming and affirmative. Yes after Nietzsche’s proclamation that ‘God is dead’, writing has become anthropocentric. How can a writer enter the realm of death? Is the writer killing his self when he enters into the train of writing? According to Camus, while writing we enter into a philosophical suicide. Yes there’s death of the actual self and birth of the creative self.

Again Blanchot goes to distinguish between the crude word and the ornamental word. When we say that the flower is in the garden we are using crude language or the language of communication. If I use: I am flowering her lips, I am ornamentally decorating the language. Writing is ornamental, decorative and hyperbolic. Again he goes on to say: poetry is the universe of words where relations and configurations are attained through sound, figure and rhythmic language. Poetry is akin to the musicality of words, and it flows with the Dionysian rhythm and makes presence with the Orpheus of figures.

Kafka began his writing out of true despair. We should know that Kafka had a stormy relationship with his father. He was also an exiled Jew. Kafka despised authority figures. Writing for Kafka grew out of protest against authoritarianism. This is especially true when we analysis his work—the Metamorphosis.  The work is allegorical and shows the negation of individuality by authority figures. The individual in Metamorphosis is reduced into fragments. Writing for Kafka was spiritual and psychological salvation. Kafka made the affirmation that nothing else besides literature satisfies me. The more Kafka writes: the less sure is he of himself.

Art is primarily the consciousness of unhappiness not its consolation. How can art be the consciousness of unhappiness alone? One can experience art through the consciousness of joy and affirmation. Let’s diagnose Picasso’s painting of the Guernica. Was Picasso filled with angst of the bombing of Basque? Or was he affirming creativity while painting the Guernica. When I meditate on Dali’s painting: The persistence of Memory, I am filled with cathartic interpretation. I appreciate its meaning to portray time as streams of consciousness. I also marvel at the melting clock placed on the frozen embryo and interpret it as Dali’s own oedipal trauma.