(A)theism, God, and Soul

TL;DR: The theism vs. atheism debate isn’t very important; the concept of soul is. To better understand soul, one has to turn to the issues pertaining to the divine. The divine is an adjective, not a noun; it is a modality of perception (of reality, by a soul); it is a special but natural modality that in principle is accessible to anyone. The faithful destroy the objectivity of the divine by seizing the concept and embedding it into the fold of religious mysticism; the materialists and skpetics help them in this enterprise by asserting, using another form of mysticism, that the divine does not even exist in the first place (because, to them, soul itself doesn’t).  Not all points are explicated fully, and further, the writing also is very much blogsome (more or less just on-the-fly).

Also see an important announcement at the end of this post.

This post has its origins in a comment which I tried to make at Anoop Verma’s blog, here: [^]. Since his blog accepts only comments that are smaller than 4KB, and since my writing had grown too long (almost 12 KB), I then tried sending that comment by email to him. Then, rather than putting him through the bother of splitting it up into chunks of 4KB each, I decided to run this comment at my own blog, as a post here.

After a rapid reading of Varma’s above-mentioned post [^], I was immediately filled with so many smallish seeds of thoughts, rushing in to me in such a random order, that I immediately found myself trapped in a state of an n-lemma (which word is defined as a quantitative generalization of “dilemma”). After idly nursing this n-lemma together with a cup of coffee for a while, both with a bit of fondness, I eventually found me saying to myself:

“Ah! And I don’t even know where to begin writing my comment!”.

Soon enough thereafter, I realized that the n-lemma persists precisely because I don’t know where to begin. … Begin. … Begin. … It’s Begin. … It’s the beginning! … Which realization then immediately got me recognizing that what is involved here belongs to the level of the basic of the basics—i.e., at the level of philosophic axioms.

Let me deal with the issue at that level, at the level of axiomatics, even though this way, my comment will not be as relevant to Varma’s specific post as it could possibly have been. But, yes, if I could spell out where to begin, then the entire problem would have been at least half-conquered. That’s because, this way, at least an indication of (i) the nature of the problem, and (ii) of its context, would have been given. As they say, a problem well defined is a problem half solved.

My main rhetorical point here is: It isn’t really necessary for one to try to get to know what precisely the term “god” means. By itself, it even looks like a non-issue. Mankind has wasted too much time on the issue of god. (Here, by “god,” I also include the God of Christianity, and of any other monotheistic/other religion.)

I mean to say: you could have a logically complete philosophy, and therefore could live a logically complete (i.e. “fullest” etc.) life, even if you never do come across the specific word: “god.”

(BTW, you could have completeness of life in this way only if you weren’t to carry even an iota of faith anywhere in your actual working epistemology. … Realize, faith is primarily an issue from epistemology, not metaphysics; the consequences of faith-vs-reason in morality, religion, society, organized religion, and politics are just that—only consequences.)

So, it isn’t really necessary to know what god means or therefore even to search for one—or to spend time proving its presence or absence. That’s what I think. Including “wasting” time debating about theism vs. atheism.

But it is absolutely necessary, for the aforementioned logical completeness to be had, to know what the term “soul” means—and what all it presupposes, entails, and implies.

Soul is important.

When it comes to soul, you metaphysically have one anyway, and further, theoretical questions pertaining to its existence and identity (or a research pertaining to them) logically just does not arise. The concept is a fundamental self-evident primary—i.e. a philosophic axiom. (Of course, there have been people like David Hume, but I am focusing here mainly on establishing a positive, not on polemics.)

As I said in the past [^][^], soul, to me, is an axiomatic concept.

Now, like in any other field of knowledge and endeavor, the greater the extent and refinement of your knowledge (of something), the better is your efficacy (in that regard). In other words, the better off you are.

Ditto, with regard to this concept too.

A case in point: Suppose you yourself were capable of originally and independently reaching that philosophical identification which is contained in Ayn Rand’s axiom “existence exists,” and suppose that you held it in a truly in-depth manner, i.e. qua axiom. Just assume that. Just assume, for the sake of argument, that you were the one who reached that universal truth which is encapsulated by this axiom, for the first time in the world! But an axiom by itself is nothing if it isn’t tied-in non-contradictorily with all its prior cognitive preparation and logical implications. Suppose that you did that too—to match whatever extent of knowledge you did have. Now consider the extent and richness of the (philosophic) knowledge which you would have thus reached, and compare it to that which Ayn Rand did. (For instance, see Dr. Harry Binswanger’s latest post here [^] with a PDF of his 1982 writings here [^], which is a sort of like an obit-piece devoted to Ayn Rand.) … What do you get as a result of that comparison?

“What’s the point,” you ask?

The point is this: The better the integrations, the better the knowledge. The non-contradictorily woven-in relations, explanations, implications, qualifications, applications, etc. is what truly makes an axiom “move” a body of knowledge—or a man. And on this count, you would find Rand beating you by “miles and miles”—or at least I presume Varma would agree to that.

Realize, by the grace of the nature of man (including the nature of knowledge), something similar holds also for the concept of soul.

And here, in enriching the meaning, applications, etc. of this concept, you would find that most (or all) of the best material available to you has come to you from houses of spirituality, or for that matter, even of religion (by which, I emphatically mean, first and foremost (though not exclusively), the Indian religions)—not from Ayn Rand.

The extant materials pertaining to soul come from houses of spirituality and religion (or rarely, e.g. in the Upanishads, of ancient Indian philosophy). Given the nature of their sources—ancient, scattered, disparate, often mere notings without context, and most importantly, only in the religious or mystical context—it is very easy to see that they must have been written via an exercise of faith. This is an act of faith on the writer’s part—and sometimes, he has been nothing more than a mere scribe to what appears to be some inestimably better Guru, who probably wouldn’t have himself espoused faith or mysticism. But, yes, the extant materials on the philosophy of mind are like that. (Make sure to distinguish between epistemology and philosophy of mind. Ayn Rand had the former, but virtually nothing on the latter.) Further, the live sources about this topic also most often do involve encouragement to faith on the listener’s/reader’s part. They often are very great practitioners but absolutely third-class intellectualizers. Given such a preponderance of faith surrounding these matters, there easily arises a tendency to (wrongly) label the good with the poison that is faith—and as the seemingly “logical” next step, to dismiss the whole thing as a poison.

Which is an error. An error that occurs at a deep philosophic level—and if you ask me, at the axiomatic level.

In other words, there exists a “maayaa” (or a veil) of faith, which you have to penetrate before you can get to the rich, very rich, insights on the phenomenon of soul, on the philosophy of the mind.

Of those who declare themselves to be religious or faithful, some are better than others; they sometimes (implicitly) grasp the good part concerning the nature of the issue, at least partly. Some of these people therefore can be found even trying to defend religion and its notions—such as faith—via a mostly misguided exercise of reason! (If you want to meet some of them: People like Varma, being in India, would be fortunate in this regard. Just spend a week-end in a “waari,” or in an “aashram” in the Himalya, or at a random “ghaaTa” on a random river, or in a random smallish assembly under some random banyan or peepul tree…. You get the idea.)

Thus to make out (i.e. distinguish) the better ones from the rotten ones (i.e. the actually faithful among those who declare themselves to believe in faith), you yourself have to know (or at least continue keeping an unwavering focus on) the idea of  the“soul” (not to mention rational philosophic ideas such as reason). You have to keep your focus not on organized religion primarily, not even on religion … and not even, for that matter, even on spirituality. Your underlying and unwavering focus has to be on the idea of “soul,” and the phenomena pertaining to it.

You do that, and you soon enough find that issues such as atheism vs. theism more or less evaporate away. At least, they no longer remain all that interesting. At least, not as interesting as they used to be when you were a school-boy or a teenager.

The word “atheism” is derived from the word “theism,” via a negation (or at least logical complimentation) thereof. “Atheism” is not a word that can exist independently of “theism.”

Etymologically, “theism” is a corrupt form (both in spelling and meaning) of the original (historical) Western term “dei-ism,” which came from something like “dieu”, which came from a certain ancient Sanskrit root involving “d”.  The Sanskrit root “d” is involved in the stems that mean: to give, and by implication and in appropriate context, also to receive. It is a root involved in a range of words: (i) “daan,” meaning giving; (ii) “datta,” meaning, the directly presented (in the perceptual field)—also the given—and then, also the giver (man), in particular, the (bliss)-giving son of the sage “atri” and his wife “anasuya” (an_ + a + su + y + aa, i.e., one without ill-will (or jealousy or envy)), and (iii) “divya”, meaning, divine (the same “div” root!).

The absence in the Western etymologies of the derivation of the English word “divine” from the ancient “d,” “diue,” “div-,” etc. is not only interesting psychologically but also amply illuminating morally.

The oft-quoted meaning of “divya” as “shining, or glimmering” appears to be secondary; it seems to be rather by association. The primary meaning is: the directly given in the perception—but here the perception is to be taken to be of a very special kind. The reason why “shimmering” gets associated with the word is because of the very nature of the “divya-druShTi” (divine vision). Gleening from the sources, divine vision (i) seems to be so aetherial and evanescent, flickering in the way it appears and disappears, and (ii) seems to include the perceived objects as if they were superimposed on the ordinary perceptual field of the usual material objects “out there,” say in a semi-transparent sort of a manner, and only for a fleeting moment or two. The “shimmering” involved, it would seem, is analogous to the mirage in the desert, i.e. the “mrigajaLa” illusion. Since a similar phenomenon also occurs due to patterns of cold-and-dense and hot-and-rarefied air near and above an oil lamp, and since the lamp is bright, the “di”-whatever root also gets associated with “shining.” However, this meaning is rather by association; it’s a secondary meaning. The primary meaning of “divya” is as in the “specially perceived,” with the emphasis being on specially, and with the meaning of course referring to the process of perception, not to this perceived object vs. that.

Thus, “divya” is an adjective, not a noun; it applies to a quality of a perception, not to that which has thus been perceived. It refers to a form or modality of perception (of (some definite aspect of) reality). This adjective completely modifies whatever that comes after it. For instance, what is perceptible to a “divya”-“druShTi” (divine vision) cannot be captured on camera—the camera has no soul. The object which is perceived by the ordinary faculty of vision can be captured on camera, but not the object which is perceptible via “divya-druShTi.” The camera would register merely the background field, not the content of the divine vision.

(Since all mental phenomena and events have bio-electro-chemo-etc-physical correlates, it is conceivable that advancement in science could possibly be able to capture the content of the “divya-druShTi” on a material medium. Realize that its primary referent still would belong to the mental referents. A soul-less apparatus such as a camera would still not be able to capture it in the absence of a soul experiencing it.)

Notice how the adjective ”divya”, once applied to “druShTi”, completely changs the referent from a perception of something which is directly given to the ordinary vision in the inanimate material reality (or the inanimate material aspects of a living being), to the content of consciousness of an animate, soulful, human being.

This does not mean that this content does not refer to reality. If the “divya-druShTi” is without illusions or delusions, what is perceived in this modality of perception necessarily refers to reality. Illusions and delusions are possible with the ordinary perception too. It is a fallacy to brand all occurrences of “divya-druShTi” as just “voices” and “hallucinations/delusions/illusions” just because: (i) that mode of perception too is fallible, and (ii) you don’t have it anyway. (Here, the “it” needs some elaboration. What you don’t have (or haven’t yet had) is: a well-isolated instance of a “divya” perception, as a part of your past experience. That doesn’t mean that other people don’t or cannot have it. Remember, the only direct awareness you (a soul) have is of your own consciousness—not someone else’s.)

“deva” or “god” (with a small `g’) is that which becomes accessible (i.e. perceivable) to you when your perception has (temporarily) acquired the quality of the “divya.”

Contrary to a very widespread popular misconception, the word “divya” does not come from a more primary“dev”; it does not mean that which is given by “dev” (i.e. a god). In other words, in principle, you are not at the mercy of a god to attain the “divya” modality.

The primacy, if there is any at all, is the other way around: the idea of “dev” basically arises with that kind of a spiritual (i.e. soul-related) phenomenon which can be grasped in your direct perception when the modality of that direct perception carries the quality of the “divya.” (The “d” is the primary root, and as far as my guess-work goes, a likely possibility is that both the “di” (from which comes“divya”) and the “de” (from which comes the“dev”) are off-shoots.) T

This special modality of perception is apparently not at all constant in time—not to most people who begin to have it anyway. It comes and goes. People usually don’t seem to be reaching a level of mastery of this modality to the extent that they can bring it completely under their control. That is what you can glean from the extant materials as well as from (the better ones among) the living people who claim such abilities.

Yet, in any case, you don’t have to have any notion of god, not even thereby just meaning “dev,” in order to reach the “divya.” That is my basic point.

Of course, I realize that those whose actual working epistemology is faith and mysticism, have long, long ago seized the idea of “dev” (i.e. god), and endowed it with all sorts of mystical and irrational attributes. One consequence of such a mystification is the idea that the “divya” is not in the metaphysical nature of man but a mystical gift from god(s). … An erroneous idea, that one is.

A “divya” mode of perception is accessible to anyone, but only after developing it with proper discipline and practice. Not only that, it can also be taught and learnt, though, gleening from literature, it would be something like a life-time of a dedication to only that one pursuit. (In other words, forget computational modeling, engineering, quantum physics, blogging… why, even maths and biology!)

In the ancient Indian wisdom, the “divya,” “dev,” and the related matters also involve a code of morality pertaining to how this art (i.e. skill) is to be isolated and grasped, learnt, mastered, used, and taught.

Misuse is possible, and ultimately, is perilous to the abuser’s own soul—that’s what the ancient Indian wisdom explicitly teaches, time and again. That is a very, very important lesson which is lost on the psychic attackers. … BTW, “veda”s mention also of this form of evil. (Take a moment to realize how it can only be irrationality—mysticism and faith in particular—which would allow the wrongful practitioner to attempt to get away with it—the evil.)

The “divya” mode is complementary to the conceptual mode of perception. (Here, I use the term “perception” in the broadest possible sense, as meaning an individual’s consciousness of reality via any modality, whether purely sensory-perceptual, perceptual, or conceptual—or, now, “divya”-involving).

Talking of the ordinary perceptual and the “divya” modalities, neither is a substitute for the other. Mankind isn’t asked to make a choice between seeing and listening (or listening and tasting, etc.). Why is then a choice brought in only for the “divya”, by setting up an artificial choice between the “divya” and the ordinary perceptual?

Answer: In principle, only because of faith.

To an educated man living in our times, denying the existence of the divine (remember, it’s an adjective, not a noun) most often is a consequence of blindly accepting for its nature whatever assertion is put forth by the (actually) faithful, the (actually) mystic, to him. It’s an error. It may be an innocent error, yet, by the law of identity, it’s an error. Indeed, it can be a grave error.

The attempt to introduce a choice between the ordinary perceptual and the “divya”-related perceptual is not at all modern; from time immemorial, people (including the cultured people of the ancient India) have again and again introduced this bad choice, with the learned ones (Brahmins, priests) typically elevating the “divya” over the ordinary perceptual. Often times, they would go a step even further and accord primacy to the “divya.” For instance, in India, ask yourself: How often have you not heard the assertion that“divya-dnyaana” (the divine knowledge, i.e., the conceptual knowledge obtained via the divine modality of perception) is superior to the “material” knowledge (i.e. the one obtained via the ordinary modalities of perception)? This is a grave error, an active bad.

The supposed “gyaanee”s (i.e. a corrupt form of “dnyaani”, the latter meaning: the knowledgeable or the wise) of ancient India have not failed committing this error either. They, too, did not always practice the good. They, too, would often both (i) mystify the process of operating in the “divya” mode, and (ii) elevate it above the ordinary perceptual mode.

Eventually, Plato would grab this bit from some place influenced by the ancient Indian culture, go back to Greece, and expound this thing as an entire system of a very influential philosophy in the West. And, of course, Western scholars have been retards enough in according originality of the invention to Plato. But the Western scholars are not alone. There are those modern Indian retards (esp. the NRIs (esp. Californians), Brahminism-espousers, etc.) too, who clamor for the credit for this invention to be restored back to the Indian tradition, but who themselves are such thorough retards that they cannot even notice in the passing how enormously bad that philosophy is—including, e.g., how bad this kind of a view of the term “divya” itself represents. (Or, may be, they get attracted to the Platonic view precisely because they grasp that it resonates with their kinds of inner motives of subjugating the rest of us under their “intellectual” control.)

Finally, though I won’t explicate on it, let me revisit the fact that the “divya” mode also is every bit as natural as is the ordinary mode. Nothing supernatural here—except when the faithful enter the picture.

In particular, speaking of the “divya” (or the original meaning of the term “divine”) in terms of the never-approachable and mystical something—something described as “transcendental,” belonging to the “higher dimensions,” something literally supposed to be “the one and the only, beyond all of us,” etc.—is ridiculous.

However, inasmuch as the “divya” modality is hard to execute, as with any skill that requires hard-work to master,  the attainment of the “divya” too calls for appropriate forms of respect, admiration, and even exaltation and worship for some (provided the notion is not corrupted via mysticism or faith). … This looks gobbledygook, so let me concretize it a bit. Just because I regard such things natural, I do not consider them pedestrian. One does not normally think of greeting a saintly man with a casual “hey dude, whatssup, buddy?” That is the common sense most everyone has, and I guess, it is sufficient.

Already too long a comment… More, may be later (but don’t press me for it).

An Important Announcement:

I had decided not to blog any more until the time that I land a job—a Mechanical Engineering Professor’s job in Pune. That’s why, even as continuing to make quite a few comments at other people’s blogs, I did not post anything new here. I wanted the readers’ eyes to register the SPPU Mechanical Engineering Professors’ genius once again. And then, again. And again.

And again.

Now that I have updated this blog (even if I have not landed a job this academic hiring season), does it mean that I have given in to the plan of their genius?

Answer: No. I have not. I have just decided to change my blogging strategy. (I can’t control their motives and their plans. But I can control my blogging.)

With this post, I am resuming my blogging, which will be, as usual, on various topics. However, a big change is this: Whenever I feel like the topic of my last post isn’t getting the due attention which it deserves, I will simply copy-paste my last post, and re-post it as a brand new post once again, so that the topic not only gets re-publicised in the process but also reclaims back the honor of being the first post visible here on this blog.

Genius needs to be recognized. Including the SPPU Mechanical Engineering Professors’ (and SPPU authorities’) genius.

I will give them that.

A Song I Like:

(Old Rajasthani Hindi) “nand-nandan diThu paDiyaa, maaee, saavaro…”
Singer: Lata Mangeshkar
Lyrics: (Traditionally asserted as being an original composition by) Saint Meera
Music: Hridaynath Mangeshkar


[I have streamlined this post a bit since its publication right today. I may come back and streamline it further a bit, may be after a day or two. Finished streamlining on 2016.09.09 morning; I will let the remaining typos and even errors remain intact as they are, for these would be beyond mere editing and streamlining—these would take a separate unit of thinking for explanation or even to get them straightened out better.]



One More (But Milder) Psychic Attack

Just a brief note that I again received yet another psychic attack today… May be the thousandth in my life, from the same sources, but, with the new “Zero Tolerance” policy that I have come to recently adopt in my life, it was important that this came out in the open.

I believe that it originated not from an avowedly Muslim country such as Pakistan, or an avowedly socialist country such as The Peoples’ Republic of China, but from the United States of America.

The precision was unmistakable.

The degree was about 40 to 50 % of the last attack;  see my post dated March 1, 2010.

The attacks began in 1998, under the white (Democratic) Bill Clinton administration; continued through the white (Republican) G. W. Bush (Junior)’s administration; had a lull immediately after the time of the signing of the Civil Nuclear Deal; and seem to resume under the black (Democratic) Barack Obama administration.

I wish the same to you, Barack. And I know, unlike most Americans since the times of Colonel George Washington, you do not like to be called by your first name. That’s all for today, but…

. . . . .

If these attacks continue, I will get worse. Publicly. That’s a promise.

On other lines, I believe it’s nearing time that I expose folks who, through police complaints and all in the USA, have helped these American dogs (of the abovementioned kind)—provided them the leverage.

Caution: Some of them are–at least were–avowedly Objectivist.

. . . . .

I did have a few things to say before these things began about after the mid night of last night. These are the following.

The good thing: Indian editors coming together against mixing news with… [whatever]. An article in news media by a COEP alumnus. Comments on blogs and the recent happenings….

Some other time, folks!… Unlike Barack, I have already had a bypass—and the origin, I believe, largely belongs to the Americans.

[Yes, they—today’s Americans, esp. their government servants and politicians, esp. their psi forces— are worth spitting at… But I want to spit at them later—in a manner than the spit sticks to their faces—white or black—in a manner fitting to their deeds.]

No songs this time. Not because I can’t think of one of these (I happen to believe that I could easily think of at least one if I were to ever face a firing squad) but because this cybercafe is already closing…

More, later.

And, yes, this is not a matter of April-fooling around.

–Dr. Ajit R. Jadhav

Pune, India

PS: Pronab (or whatever distorted way you Bengalis spell out the simple name: Pranav), when you put on that weird funny gown and cap tomorrow, ask Patangrao/Vishwajit/Dr. Bhalerao (who attended, I have been told, RSS, in his childhood): Why did these Indira Congress folks fail to hire me as a Professor.

PPS: Has Rahul Gandhi/Priyanka’s husband come to develop a heart trouble out of psychic attacks of this nature? … How I would love it if they were to!!


To be updated/edited later on

Psychic Attacks on Me—Once Again, Right Today!

I have mentioned oftentimes before, here and elsewhere, that I have been “followed up” in media and have been subject to psychic attacks (yes, specifically those!)

While I had been sensing a bit of psychic follow-ups over the past few days, I ignored it. As is usual, these were accompanied by weird emails and Web-site notifications, esp. from the Times of India group. For example…. Umm… Let me give you the background first. I had created an account with the Times of India venture “SimplyMarry.com,” some time ago. Then, fed up with the weird messages generated by the Times of India management, I had chosen to close the account. However, despite my requests to do so, they never actually closed the account, and kept on sending messages to me. They choose their own wording and timing… After a lull of several months, it was within past two weeks that they once again woke up and sent, given their history, what essentially couldn’t have been anything but, a harassing email reminder.

Anyway, to come back to psychic attacks and all… Today, I received a major psychic attack. … If you are conversant with these things, the areas targeted were: the left side of chest, esp. the heart region, and also, to a certain extent, the stomach region. In the language of “chakra”s and all (which I have read a lot about but find to be far too sloppy and romanticized a description), the attack occurred right on my solar plexus chakra and heart chakra.

If I can suffer such attacks, can I figure out who attacked me? Unfortunately, not.

Who do I think could be behind this attack (as usual, cowardly and dark)? I am afraid I do not know.

Do I have a guesswork? I think not. But let me tell you the possibilities—i.e. my unwillingness to believe and saythat such and such a party simply could not have been the attacker. I believe that the attack could easily have originated from anyone beginning from a “maantrik” employed by some Indian page-3 occupant who, by some turn of “gears,” found himself in an inconvenient spot, to someone from Pakistan, to, also, someone from the USA.

In any case, with my changed policy, I had decided to immediately identify the attack as soon as it occurred…. I have done so using my signature on iMechanica.org in the past…. Since I no longer blog there, I decided to state it here.

Needless to add, I would resume my blogging once I find that the attack has subsided. … I have been subjected to these since (at least) July 1998, when I was in the USA, and they have taken a physical toll on me, too…. More on that, some other time… For the time being, I am just going to take rest and not blog—which could very well be the outcome the attackers had desired.

Given its nature, this post won’t have the “Songs I Like” section. And, yes, I think I would revise the contents too, sometime later.

Just one more note: If I don’t know who the attacker(s) is (are), it obviously means that I do not give anyone permission to similarly attack anyone else—that would be at random, and I won’t have any of it.


–Dr. Ajit R. Jadhav

Some random thoughts on USA and its 2008 elections…

This evening and tonight, people of USA will go out and vote.

Today, it is safe to state that the long-form of “USA” is: United Stupids of America. … I say it safe, because no matter who wins, today, about half the USA will certainly agree with me 🙂

In my opinion, all the recent USA elections have clearly demonstrated that, these days, *anyone* can get to be a president of USA. (Pun intended.)

OK. Jokes apart. Some serious stuff now.


My Election Advice: No matter which side you wish to vote for, do go out and vote.

But why don’t I tell which side I am on?

Simple. I have no side to take. Not because I am “side-less” on principle (or out of stupidity) or so, but because of some other considerations…

(i) Neither candidate is going to change immigration laws significantly (i.e. not along the rational lines, as indicated by, say, the Objectivist philosopher Harry Binswanger: see here).

(ii) Neither party has, as a matter of facct, shown enough of civility to refrain from attacking me personally, including every “legal” means available to them such as the psychic means (see here)… The governments run by both the parties—the Democrats just as well as the Republicans—have done so… Perhaps, it all has been as a part of the pressure tactics following the nuclear tests by India. But the nuclear thing has often seem to be only an excuse though… That simply cannot be the main reason… A power lust arising from wanting to dictate terms to significant Indians could very well also be a motive too, behind such psychic attacks on me… By making an example of sorts out of my case… The psychic attacks (and USA cannot deny their part in it) have included psycho-somatic damage (including induction of extremely pathological bad dreams of the kind I had never had before July 1998, spikes of explosions waking me up, etc.), and their follow-up in day-time (e.g. via door-to-door “vendors” selling certain items, via articles in newspapers written up with preferential selection of words, via photographs selected to reflect peculiarities of the day before, etc.)… Neither American party can wash off the sins against me that they *have* committed… It’s not always the Russians (or others), you know…


Now, if [some] Americans say: “Come on now, we aren’t that bad, are we? Why don’t you just let bygones be bygones and tell us who you would have voted?”

My first comment: Yes, many Americans *are* that stupid, as well as careless of the suffering of others, that they could blithely assume all their general goodness and proceed to ask the question.

Now my answer: If you wish to talk friendly, that’s fine by me. By my philosophy, individuals can be better (or worse) than averages and national policies. More importantly, thinking individuals can be better—even if they are Americans.

But, the point is: bygones cannot be bygones if Americans have willingly cut away a part of your earnings, repeatedly cut short your career goals, helped cut short your life-span, your happiness… In short, your life.

… But still, choosing to look at the better Americans and the better among the things they have done (both for me in particular and otherwise in general), I will say two things:

The decisiveness with which Americans acted with respect to the nuclear deal was a good thing, a positive sign. Even if it came as late in 2005 onwards… If I had to single out just one (or a few) person(s) rather than attribute the success to something as nubulous as “the American administration” or even “the Bush administration,” then that person would have to be, not George Bush, but, Condolizza Rice. Good job, Condy! Well done!! You should have been given much more credit than they have. The Indian side, really speaking, owes you appreciation by way of a special award or so… May be, a prestigious visiting fellowship at JNU or the University of Pune (rather than at one of the IIMs or IITs or so)… May be in the years to come… (If a sufficiently prestigious fellowship does not exist, it’s high time that Indians created it.) This one “girl” has been excelling so consistently (from high-school onwards), without hyping too much about it, and despite being in politics, that it has to be specially acknowledged…

But anyway, returning to the main thread, that—the nuclear deal and the American bi-partisan decisiveness about it—was about the only positive sign coming from the American side in the past so many years, perhaps the whole decade since 1998.

So, we don’t have much good to look at, but we do have something… So, keeping that in mind, I might jot down my random (and not too deeply thought of) thoughts here… So, here we go…

Though I have (and had) no preference at all about presidential candidates, that doesn’t mean I have no comments to make.

When Hillary Clinton lost the nomination, I did feel, dimly and partly, good. Not because I had (or have) something against Hillary herself (or against her party), but because there is a group of “asshole” [TBD insert URL to a Stanford prof as Biswajit Banerjee recently did] Indians, (esp. in the SF Bay Area,) who have perfected the art of getting their hands on a lot of undeserved spoils (and also passing some of it to some Indians here in India), during the 8-year long presidency of her husband. They have even gone so far as to tell us Indians in India, during the mid- and late-1990s, that today’s USA is capitalist, that they themselves are capitalists (say, of the venture capitalist kind), that they have made it big on the basis of their talent alone, and not by way of political pulls and favors, etc. etc. etc.  And, they have been, despite their Indian roots and all, absolutely thick and completely unapproachable by any ordinary engineer like me…. When Hillary lost, presumably, they lost too… And this last part was “enjoyable.”

Now of course I do realize that despite defeat of some people, the principle of pulls as such, will still continue to work in the USA because today’s America is overwhelmingly mixed economy—it’s not capitalist. (Telling us that it is capitalist precisely is a part of the same gameplan to pull it further towards statism.) But my point is, there will at least be a bit of novelty in who makes noises, and who exploits ordinary engineers like me in their dirty games… After all, psychologically, it is sickening to see exactly the same individuals make exactly the same noises again and again for years… And, existentially, there is hope that, one might, after all, escape having to suffer on their behalf if the people “calling the shots” change… With Obama’s nomination, there already is a visible change. This particular group of assholes [TBD insert link] has not been making as much of noise as they would have. I am personally “happy” about that. One has to be if they arrogate so much as to say that “XYZ (an American) is good for India” when, the fact has been, Indians like me have been made to suffer.

And, though I did not (and do not) care for US elections (for both kinds of reasons stated above—the immigration- and personal attacks-related), I, nevertheless, also do think that Obama is going to win.

Further, I think that if this indeed comes to pass (and we will get to know the results right within the next 24 hours), the chief architect of Obama’s victory would have been not he himself or his party but the person of George W. Bush and his party.

That’s right. The chief architect of Obama victory should not be found within the Chicago school of socialists who now will be flooding the Democratic party, but within (i) the religious streaks within the Republican party, and (ii) the socialist streaks within the Republican party—as exemplified by the recent unprincipled decisions concerning those bailouts… (This is a very serious and very prominent example, but it is, unfortunately, not the end of the story… There have been other examples too…)

So, that’s that. I think Obama will win.

I also think that if this financial mess were not to happen, and if Osama bin Laden were to be captured or killed, then today’s Americans would have, despite everything else, still gone ahead and elected the Republican candidate. That is, despite knowing that such action of theirs would give the religious rights (and the Republican socialists as well) a more free rein to dictate they themselves. … Whether you like it or not, today’s Americans *are* like that. They wouldn’t mind being dictated. Not so long it is done in some specific situations and not others… (The definition may change from an American to another, but most Americans of today’s certainly wouldn’t mind being dictated—-almost none is *consistently* against dictatorship in principle in that country: USA.)

And that’s why, I also think that today’s Americans would have even very easily ignored the financial mess (complete with the CEO parachutes and the bureaucrat’s double-game) and brought the victory in the presidential race to the Republicans (or at least brought the race to even odds) if the republicans could have shown a convincing victory abroad (say, via capture of bin Laden or a victorious conclusion of the war in Iraq or so)… That has not happened, and so, the race has gone, as far as I can tell, with the alternative, namely, Obama.

Of course, this is not to say that the Obama campaign or the Democratic party did nothing to ensure their victory or that they have nothing positive by their side at all. That’s not my point here. The point is, despite all their political savvy and support and strengths, once Hillary lost, the Republicans still could have defeated them. After all, Obama is no Bill Clinton or JFK. And, after all, that’s how Americans *are*. They could easily be swayed over to the Republican side despite the latter’s socialist items. (Socialism is not only on the side of the left, and things like principled fight against socialism have ceased to be the main motivators of Americans in their politics.)

Of course, as I said, the fact of my writing this all still does not mean that I care (or have cared) for US elections. Whatever I have written is something that is damn too obvious to anybody, without even thinking for half a minute about it….

And tell me, if I were to care for these elections, what would it change for me? Think honestly. Am I of the sort to be bought if the bread-crumbs like, say, a tenured position are to be thrown at him? LOL! Stock Options in a sure-shot success Start Up? ROTFL… If not, then ask yourself, what is there in it for me? The answer is plain and obvious: Nothing… There indeed is nothing in it for me… Not even a purely verbal talk of high principles… After all, none—neither the candidates (their speech-writers) nor column-writers nor the ordinary party supporters on either side—has been talking about any of the principles that made America what it is… So, there’s not even a purely empty sort of talk, purely a lip service being paid to the high political principles.

I (indeed) wish Americans were less stupid. … (“Dumbed down” if you prefer.)


On second thoughts, there *is* a matter that I can care about. It is this.  Since I take it that Obama is going to be the president, carrying a good majority in the house of representatives, therefore, I think, that if Americans are even half-smart, they should not give the Democrats more than a 55-vote majority in the senate.

After all, though everyone is talking about the presidential elections, there also are a lot of senate (and house) seats being contested for. Not that I am against Obama. Or the Democrats. Not at all. But there *is* something that I am for: limited, rational government. And there is something that I am against—statism, esp., that in the (superpower) USA.

Democrats are expected to take both house and the senate in these elections. One can’t care so much for the house—it is what it is, but the senate—the American senate—even today, is different.

If the balance between the two variants of statism hangs precariously in the senate, and therefore, if it makes it difficult to pass statist bills pass easily, then that is good for America, and for free markets, for limited governments in general (and therefore, good for the rest of the world too).

The statists won’t be able to pass a slew of small bills, precursors to major changes down in future, if the senate remains almost evenly divided. Today, the US senate has the 51D-49R composition. The senate will lose its effectiveness to check the progress of numerous small statist bills if the balance tilts in a major way, say, if it goes over 55D-45R. Or some similar figure, I don’t know—that’s for political experts to know, I don’t care. What I do care is that the march of statism at least got speed-breakers even if it could not be arrested…

Do this much in these elections, Americans, will you? Or is it too much to ask (of your (real) stupidity)?