An eye for an eye?

I'd rather not be talking as though I feel that everything that's being said today was said way back in India by our sainted ancestors. It's sort of become a standing joke...what, in the idiom of today, may be called a meme...when someone, especially someone my age, says anything that can be construed as something akin to 'We had drones and AI from the Ramayan times.'

But...I mean, come on, society seems to keep regurgitating the same damn ideas over and over again, so what's one to do? Technology may change but ideas about how to lead life seem to oscillate between the same basic ideas and, thus, it IS bound to be something that SOME ancestor has already told before. No point blaming me for pointing it out.

Thiranalla tharpirar seyyinum nonondhu aranalla seyyaamai nandru - Tirukkural

If someone does evil to you, it's best to not let the pain cause you to likewise do evil to them - Loose Translation

There! No eye for an eye! This quality of forgiveness thing seems to be widely prevalent among philosophers though, to be honest, Tiru does not go so far as asking you to forgive that evil so-and-so in this Kural. He merely asks you to abstain from doing evil back to him. And, thankfully, he only says it's best not to do so and not that mealy-mouthed 'Then what's the difference between you and him.'

That, though, is the real problem with revenge. If you CAN do the same evil to the other person, because of the provocation then it DOES change you. Either the guilt of what you have done eats at you; or you actually become closer to the other guy in terms of mindset. What you did today as an act of justified revenge could well turn into something that you do tomorrow merely because you managed to justify it to yourself.

The problem lies in the quest for vengeance. For unrequited vengeance can eat at your soul and embitter you. If Society should punish in such a manner as to give you closure, fine. But if it is not an injury which Society can punish, it can fester inside you.

So...it is not so mealy-mouthed after all. It IS best for YOU to be able to forgive and move on!

The greatest power?

You know, the strange thing about these philosophers is their odd ideas about things like wealth, power and the likes. I mean, when us ordinary mortals think of wealth, for example,  we think of the BMWs and, perhaps, the odd island or two that we could own...simple things like that. AND, as you have seen in these very annals, talk to philosophers and they will prate of what's in your head - knowledge etc. It's like what we look for in the outside world, they seem to look for inside us.

So, it's not really surprising that Tiru came out with this:

Inmaiyul inmai virundhoraal vanmaiyul vanmai madavaarp porai - Tirukkural

The worst of poverty is to deny hospitality to guests; the greatest power is to be able to bear with the criticism of fools - Loose Translation

THAT is a double whammy for you. Tiru says that, no matter how rich you are, if you do not have the generosity to extend hospitality to guests, you have a poverty of mindset. (See! The worst of poverty is the one in the mind!!) AND, if you can be patient with the idiotic criticism of fools, you possess the greatest power. (Alas, yes, it IS expected of anyone in creative endeavors to possess this greatest of powers and listen to the criticism of everyone without any retaliation or defense.)

But, yes, in a way, this ability to shrug off unwarranted criticism IS a super-power. It is probably a major component of what you could call EQ or SQ or what you will. The ability to deal with people is largely dependent on the ability to not react emotionally to criticism. He who can let insults slide off his skin like he is coated in Teflon is the guy who eventually wins people over. 

The converse is equally as true. If you allow criticism to prey on your mind, you could either be convinced that you are no good OR be convinced that the people around you are no good. Either way, you could end up with the idea of 'What's the good of my persisting with my efforts because...' AND complete that sentence either with '...I am no good at this' OR '...these people are incapable of appreciating what I have done'.

Now, yes, those are the two extremes and most people fall in between. But a lot more people actually hit the negative extreme and far too few are capable of hitting the positive extreme.

Which is why Tiru is right and it IS a super-power!

Good Parenting?

Yeah, yeah, I know that you guys are sniggering at my writing anything at all about parenting. Though why you should is a mystery since I am certain to have been at the receiving end of parenting - good or bad. And, in all the whole wide world, the ones who are the most vocal about ANYTHING are those who perceive themselves as victims of that thing - administration, leadership, whatever - and are also not the ones who have ever had to do it. AND the conviction about knowing what's wrong with it is the strongest with those who never have had to DO it. So, why should I not talk of parenting with equal conviction, given that I have not had to do it at all?

But then, by now you should know that I have always a readymade recourse to lean back on when it comes to pontificating about anything I do not really know. (Yeah, yeah, that means almost everything. Do you need to belabor the obvious?) Of course, I'm talking of Tiru.

Thanthai magarkaattru nandri avayatthu mundhi irupaach cheyal - Tirukkural

The greatest boon that a father may grant is to make his son foremost among the learned - Loose Translation

Now THAT, I suppose, is a laudable goal for a father - to educate his children so that they have respect in an assembly of the wise. (Yes, Tiru does talk of only fathers in this context. What can I say, he lived in patriarchal times. Just take the essence of his ideas without outraging on the patriarchy.)

The problem, though, is that education means different things to different people. As in, there was a time when education meant knowing literature and philosophy; now education is useful only if it renders you employable which, essentially, seems to exclude literature and philosophy. There was a time when engineering was education and a camera was for fun; now...you get the picture.

Most parents DO strive to get their children to a space where they are respected by the wise in Society. The problem is only that parents think that they know best about WHAT sort of education will help them achieve their target. Which very seldom seems to vibe with what the children themselves want.

And not just that. It is probably the children who know what's best to get them that respect these days. With rapidly changing technology, parents could well be attempting to educate their children in exactly those areas which will be rendered redundant by AI/ML/what-have-you.

So exactly what are parents to do? Leave children to their own devices? Perhaps.

The only thing that parents CAN help inculcate in their children is character. So, instead of picking the area in which the children should gain the respect of their peers, parents can just stick to...

Teaching them to pursue excellence in whatever area they choose to work.

Useless AI?

Technology has always proved to be a huge let-down for me. They first talked up automation and, now, they are all talking up this Artificial Intelligence thingy. And I am sure that this is going to end up disappointing me the same way all the previous disruptive technology did. Though, yes, nowadays I couldn't care less given that the benefits which I sought from technology are, in a way, mine already.

I mean, look, people used to explain the need for work on the basis that, unless people produced, there would be nothing to consume. Therefore, you HAD to work at something in order to be able to lay claims to those things that you would like to consume...like food, clothing, shelter, yada yada. AND, whenever they talked of technology, they talked of it as something that would ease the burden of work by humanity.

So, is it so out of the way to assume that the day would come when ALL the burden of work would be taken up by machines and humanity could loll around and relax without having to earn the right to consume? After all, the whole rationale for work was to produce that which you needed to consume and now, the machines would do all that production, no?

Reading Science Fiction only exacerbated my misconception. The story that stuck in my mind (just the story, not the title or the author of the story) was one about a chap living in a huge six room villa and allowed to work only for one day in the week. Yup, in a future world where most of the work was being done by machines. The chap was an idiot, though, since he spends most of the story moping about how to rise so high in society that he could live in a single room house and work six days a week. The author was, possibly, satirizing the fact that we yearn for things that society says is upmarket without regard to what we ourselves find comfortable or luxurious. What stuck in my mind, though, was the fact that technology could, one day, create the utopia where I need not work for a living.

Never worked out that way, did it? I mean, every time there is a technology advance which seems like it can take over some of the burden from humanity, people rush in saying 'Oh! It will create new types of jobs' as though it is something desirable. They said that when first computers appeared on the horizon and, alas, they proved right. Now AI makes its way into the world and they are saying that again. Shit!

I don't understand exactly why they say this new-jobs thingy as though it is supposed to reassure people. I mean, really, do people actually LOVE working and are frightened of the concept of leisure? Like that idiot in the story wanting to work six days a week instead of one day and considering it an effing improvement? Has humanity gone bonkers OR was it always bonkers?

I am told, though, that this madness is more systemic than individual. As in, we have a system wherein people have to BUY things and to buy they have money which is given to them only when they work...unless, of course, their forefathers had done what was needed and handed them over an inheritance OR they get that money in a lottery. So, being in a job is sort of necessary in order to consume even if there is an abundance produced without your needing to lift a finger. So, no jobs could equal starvation and thus...

Not that we have, as yet, reached a situation where most of the production is automated. AND, yes, the transition period can get very painful.

But...never mind. We have politicians, who are ahead of the curve, promising freebies at every election. And freebies are after all what everything will be if machines do all the work!

What was that? They are so far ahead of the curve that they are practically distributing what is not even getting produced but so what? You nitpickers are the reason why the world is so slow to progress!

Worthy Silence

In childhood, I used to always get told 'Children should be seen but not heard.' The problem, though, is parents very seldom stick to their own rules. I mean, I was all for remaining silent but then they would call on me to recite 'Baa Baa Black sheep' or some such crap. What happened to the virtues of silent children then?

Tiru comes around also preaching the virtues of silence but sort of offers an explanation about when it applies as well.

Kalladhavarum naninallar katraar mun solla dhirukkap perin - Tirukkural

Even the ignorant seem worthy if they but keep silent in the company of the knowledgeable - Loose Translation.

There you are! The virtue of silence is that it does not expose your ignorance. You know that saying - It is better to keep your mouth shut and be taken for a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. Something like that, though Tiru thinks that silence will make you seem worthy. At least the worth of having the sense to keep your mouth shut if not the worth of knowing more than you actually do.

The problem, though, is that most people actually cannot spend the time to learn the things that are generally talked about in social circumstances. I mean, you spend your life learning Python or whatever, and can scarcely be bothered to learn Indian History or the merits and demerits of the various 'ism's. If you adhere to this 'Silence is golden' rule, you are condemned to remain silent except when you can speak in or about code. What sort of life is that?

And, anyway, you can always assume that you are not in the company of the knowledgeable, given that most people around you are like you.

Ignorance - other people's ignorance - is your bliss!