Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
While there is something called a "Blue Whale Game" that pushes people to commit suicide and like HIV AIDS we are believing in "Jankari hi Bachaw" - i.e. Knowing is preventing. It simply makes you trust on the good will of the civilisation that if you know what "Blue Whale Game" is you can survive just by not playing it! Is it that simple? or is it something much more complicated? Kaleidoscope usually believes in history and he strongly believes in the Baudrillard's claim that "Everything has already happened... nothing new can occur, there is no real world!" Kaleidoscope firmly believes in the existence of simulacra and its endless layers of signifiers.
Blue Whale Games as Civilisation's Brutal Experiments:
Today's civilizational confrontations:
Friday, August 18, 2017
Kaleidoscope of late has been marginalised in the social forum regularly. The reason of such marginalization is directly linked to his critical stance against the state policies. The systematic marginalization has been of two kinds 1) people have identified him being close, being in an exchange relationship with certain parties especially with Left Front and of late Trinamool, 2) kaleidoscope is seen as anti-national - yes how can he support JNU antinationals then? How can he write blogs on identifying features of educated chaddis? How can he write against demonetisation?
One way to deal with the problem is to avoid engaging in such conversations. Even if you see on your news feed that some people are believing in having GPS chip in Rs. 2000 notes or even if someone supports beef ban and so on. Another way is to block these people and you have your news feed clearer and hence a happier life.
Kaleidoscope cannot do either. Firstly, he believes that even if someone reading his arguments rethinks the dominant issues Kaleidoscope would be more than happy. Second, and more importantly he believes that it has something to with much longer history and public spere of kaleidoscope's world is a victim of false consciousness. It is not the falseness which is problematic it is the consciousness which is problematic.
Why is that so?
Keep no misconception here. Kaleidoscope will not take a cultural relativist position. There is no pride to be a victim of misrecognitions especially if you have so called ignited mind.
Kaleidoscope belongs to a country which for centuries have been taught to follow the power centres and hierarchies without question. Hence, his fellow citizen still calls a Block Development Officer as BDO Saheb (saheb is an honourary siffix for britishers), Pradhan saheb, Doctor saheb, professor saheb and so on.
When they add suffix as saheb they obey and forget to question. Kaleidoscope has grown up in a world which has inherited a legacy of close to selfless leaders! and have seen quality leaders who have done things which phenomenlogically can be called 'being for others' - long live Sartre.
Public sphere has seen policies which they were taught to obey and not question. Now there were policies doing quite well. Sarkar Maa-ë-Baap is hence should be seen as a legacy of 'welfare state' model and not the neoliberal state model.
Hence, kaleidoscope continues to live in a world which is filled with obeying subjects and not questioning subjects. The society continue to misrecognise a neo-liberal state as a welfare state and it would continue as his fellow citizens continue to salute national flag in a throat deep water in Assam. Yes, Sarkar Maa-ë-Baap!
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
Kaleidoscope is born in a world where he is encountering caste every now a then. He knows caste predisposition is there and it often determines a lot of other things. The peculiarities lie when apparently unrelated things are linked to caste.
Some prominent discourses:
"There must be a bunch of poor performing students coming from Scheduled Caste background!" - caste-performance interface (yes, loaded!)
"Whom to teach? we have taught such an elite class of students, these students are not in a position to take what we offer!" Class - caste - quality- class-position of teacher (loaded again!)
"You know this service is now more open towards rural counterparts - people are coming from different corners of the state and about their quality - the less said, the better!" rural/urban, elite/subaltern(?) interface (ethnic cleansing, perhaps!)
"The problem with them is that they are coming from nearby areas - they are first generation learners - it is difficult to make them understand what we teach!" elites facing failures (Narcissism!)
"You can't be sure, Das can be SC or Genral (smiles) chowdhury is even more confusing - you know what I mean" uncertainties (template failure, elites need extra effort to even judge as a person)
In the name of positive (?) discrimination:
Disappearance of identities and further consolidation
What lies next?
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Kaleidoscope know even if he has to take a few days of leave it would be okay to continue at pace with the policy changes that runs parallel with dataism! Its not the loss of time-energy-money that makes Kaleidoscope believe that Data is NOT that Sexy - it is rather quite deep rooted that this.
Data flow and vanishing qualitative dimensions:
What dataism says?
How do we contribute?
Remember terminator III dialogue
Monday, August 14, 2017
|National Flag at Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Govt. College. Photograph: Tuhin Subhra Sarkar|
Friday, August 11, 2017
Why was it required?Lets make it straight, we have had enough with uncles and aunties from the neighbourhood lecturing us what to do, how to do and when to do. Similarly, we have had enough with the professors with wrinkles demanding us to follow their template of positivism or whatever philosophy. Yes, Kaleidoscope too was bored and exhausted everywhere, listening to some stereotypes of doing certain things in some supposedly known pathway, seriously!
Yes, the disgust was not for people like Kaleidoscope only, even scholars of highest reputation (whom people refer to but never actually read) were equally frustrated and they challenged it. The most prominent among those Kaleidoscope can remember is that of logocentrism - the search for universal idea about certain things like beauty (Kaleodsocope knows the definition of sexy, like you do!), truth, right and so on. Well Derrida (1978) (dont worry hardly anyone reads him) wanted to dismantle logocentric attitude of our practices. Imagine a theatre - what is there? A set of actors representing a situation. The situation has some cue to the real life. Yes, you heard it right, Kaleidoscope is taking a materialist stand here and firmly believes that everything in idea or in mind has a real - material cue. So, the resulting theatre is a combination of real life experience and ideas of the director. Derrida wanted to have a theatre where actors are not guided by any director, any text of any author! Yes, a state of condition where logocentric forces are withdrawn. Although Derrida was less sure about the actual condition of such a stage where script will absent, Foucault (1980) searched for "rules that determine the conditions of possibility for all that can be said within the particular discourse at a given time" Hence, when Kaleidoscope thoroughly read him he could actually see the existence of governmentality within his very self as a set of conduct of all possible conducts.
Yes, whatever Kaleidoscope does is scripted, foretold and whatever he does not do is forestalled. Kaleidoscope like all others continue to live in a prison-house of words (for Derrida) of conducts (for Foucault).
Therefore when Kaleidoscope sees a young girl shouting out Jeans ka Haq... jine ka haq (right to jeans right to live) in Lipstick Under My Burkha he finds a liberation. The black is beautiful, the acid attack victim is beautiful in the ugly face of society in which Kaleidoscope strives to live, the fat is desirable, one's own body and self even if doesn't match logocentrically is beautiful - is meaningful - is worth a life to live happily. Happiness is happiness, love is love you term it straight, gay whatever - that's your logocentric problem!
Kaleidoscope wont let the aunties and uncles determine what he wants from his life and how does he want that. Kaleidoscope knew for sure what post-structuralism meant to him, but less sure about it what it means to his generation but could sense what it means to the coming generation, which even if has never read Derrida or Foucault would continue to practice "post-structural" way of life. Why is that so? simply, because its an era of mass and rapid diffusion and weathering away of old logocentrisms - does it bring and form new logocentrisms? Yes it does, and here lies the problem.
The post-structuralism of present timeEven the prominent post structuralists like Derrida or Foucault didn't know clearly how that stage without script was possible - surely Derrida didn't claim it to be anarchic - anarchy in itself has numerous logocentrisms. What they did was demanded and trained us to question the very foundation of knowledge as logocentric and attempted to discover the alternatives. Knowing fully well, the alternatives would also create newer logocentrisms and hence the prison cell can only be altered not that Kaleidoscope's species can ever make every prison to dust and enemies of logocentrism free!
Hence, the cycle would continue.
Meanwhile everything that is happening in the name of post-structuralism is not post-structural. It is rather a play of different logocentrisms originated from different societies. The whole idea of cultural diffusionism can be seen as origin and dispersion of logocentric traits from one place to another. Hence, what Kaleidoscope's time experiencing is an ever complicated and complex interplay of logos which were hitherto unknown. Therefore, instead of liberating, Kaleidoscope's species from logocentrism the present mode of existence is embracing newer logocentric traits and actually binding the species even with newer dimensions and micro identities. Earlier it was the primordial identities of country, religion, caste and the like. Now we have increasingly newer identities like Nationalist and antinationalist countrymen, Nationalist/Antinationalist Hindu/muslim country men and the like. There are JNU breeds, JU breeds, IIT breeds, IIM breeds among the aspiring academicians and an even more complex classifications among the left-out 'subalterns' from lesser known universities. There are beer lovers and whisky lovers. Beef lovers and beef haters - you want logocentrism you get it everywhere.
There actually is no post-structural world surrounding Kaleidoscope but the reflections of such world in the name of post-structuralism dangerous:
take these few examples:
"What is corruption? It is just a system of getting things done?"
"I will do it in my way, fuck your morality!"
the arguments continue.
Kaleidoscope knows he is inhabiting in a peculiar world of the games of ever increasing number of logocentrisms which are often legitimised in the name of post-structuralism!
Wednesday, August 9, 2017
Facebook and symbolic interactionism:Kaleidoscope is watching old and almost forgotten scholars of sociology coming alive with facebook. The school of though which looked at human being as symbol creating and interacting species - the symbolic interactionism. How does his species satisfies symbolic interactions possible is by making a series of ideas of self. The self is Social and individual. It is social in so far it is objective and hence requires a particular mode of presentation. On the other hand there is an individual and subjective self which is constantly there - some call them as the true self.
Kaleidoscope, however, is sceptical about the existing boundary between so called subjective and social self. Does they differ? As pragmatists might say actors and world are in constant dynamic process of interaction and creation of each other and with facebook boundaries between self and world is in a constant process of juxtaposition and perhaps started to blur years ago.
For example facebook page gives you space to nurture your objective self - social self to get its fullest and acceptable presentations. You never present what you are. For example in any given day you are not going to upload your profile picture randomly. You usually chose from the best ones. The category best has a social meaning within. Hence, in a process of "Social selection" you put on layers of make up. You tend to be happy unless a different presentation is needed, participate in a cause, think for future and whatever suits you.
Sarahah and the rise third order constructs:
Now that you are completely immersed in postmodern endless succession of depthless presents through presentation of your layered self suddenly there is a resurgence of your subjective self through "Sarahah." Sarahah is asking you have honest feedback from your friends anonymously. No matter how you have presented yourself towards the world, your presentation of self had another layer of meaning - another layer of objectivity - another layer of "social selection." Now you know what people 'actually' think of you - now another camouflage. People will never say what they really think about you - they will only say what they think you need to listen to or perhaps what would make them feel better to say about you. Moreover, when you tend to repost what people have said about you in Sarahah you (most likely) tend to select those which pleases you.
Now Let us allow Kaleisdoscope to make it little clearer
Reality - Your thought - Your presentation - others reception - your 'socially selected' presentation (second order in facebook) - others' reception (second order) - continuation of your social selection, the cycle continues.
Reality - your thought - your presentation - others' receptions - your 'socially selected' presentation (second order in facebook) - others' reception (second order) - Others' 'mentally filtered' (since anonymous) reactions - your (filtered) repost in facebook (third order).
The third order construct will continue.
Kaleidoscope would love to end by remembering Manning (1992)
The overall tenor of The Presentation of Self is to a world in which people, whether individually or in groups, pursue their own ends in cynical disregard for others... the view here is of the individual as a set of performance masks hiding a manipulative and cynical self.
See if you like:
Manning, Philip (1992) Erving Goffman and Modern Sociology. Stanford University Press.
Goffman, Erving (1959) Presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Early dangerous exposures:
Origins of problems:
The civilizational taboos:
The new religion of academic taboos:
|An imaginary graph representing inverse relationship between Humor and Identity in Kaleidoscope's society|