Saturday, May 30, 2009

Thinking Ecologically than thinking of ecology-V

Thinking ecological happens to be a method where the immediate next moment is always a mystery. This next moment is not the future rather the bridge between the present and the future. We, human beings have got accustomed to the future and the futuristic thinking so much that the importance of the next moment is never underscored. The next moment is tactical, moral and hence essential. One can do anything except avoiding the next moment. The essential reality of this moment is that it is subjective. It's a zone of so many clashes and convergences that the act of facing the next moment becomes the most decisive act of being. Whether we like it or not, the decisive character of this moment is because of its being a link between the present and the future. We may assume to postpone the issue of decisiveness but the way we handle this moment gets permanently registered in the continuity of time and hence life. Every next moment has this character attached to itself. Whatever we have contributed to this series of moments, shall keep on building but we may call as our past. This past shall be a permanent reference point for all moments to come. This reference may crop up as a matter of bondage or a matter of liberation but I would say that reference should remain first and foremost only reference. The meaning, positive or negative may be a contextual force but the basic fact shall remain that a reference is only a reference.
People might find it a bit uncomfortable because we have remained the beings of moral thinking. A moral thinking will either make you a prisoner of the past or achiever of the past. I would maintain that this reality should not be taken out of a certain context. In objective terms, the past to remain a reference point. Why I am saying that history of a person may define the future of a person but may not determine too. The distinction between defining and determining is because of the presence of one universal which is nothing but death. This universal was present during all the moments of the timescale that a person has gone through. It shall also be present for all the moments that are yet to come in somebody's life. That is why the context of death was there, is there and shall remain there. A person may ignore to authenticate the presence of death but this ignorance is not an unlimited act. It may be broken anytime anywhere. This brings out the distinction between defining and determining. The past shall remain a defining possibility but the person shall remain the determining entity. The process of determination is a process where desire and death are in the state of immediate face-off. This kind of meeting is not based upon any kind of astrological understanding of timing of death rather it is founded upon accepting death as the immediate possibility in the next moment. Anybody who takes a shot in this interface may fulfil the desire of the moment. She may die after that but she has the option of giving priority to desire and not to survival. It's like trying out bungee jumping for the first time but it is much more than that. Death may eliminate her in the next moment but she has chosen her desire to live with. She may die but if she doesn't die in the next moment, she can realise with awkward relief and a bit of common sense that the context of death is as alive again as it was in the last moment. This time, it is not equal into bungee jumping but it may turn out to be again a case of priority of desire over the priority of survival. I'm not saying what a person can accomplish with this kind of practical experimentation by assuming the context of death but I would definitely say that she can realise the sustainability of this context as a permanent context. She may refuse to participate consciously with this context but her refusal will not eliminate this context.
Death is like a wayward traveller that can venture into our life from any point of time and space. So, the question is if the desire can sustain its power in each coming moment despite the context of death being operational at every moment? Generally, what happens is that the idea of death and its power can distort many desires and almost vanquish the paraphernalia of those desires. This can be the time of great personal tragedies, critical occasions or social disaster and so on but my experience tells that death does vanquish many but not all desires. There is no method of calculating that in any scientific terms but still, every person does perform somewhat more or less beautifully in such a situation though not at the first occasion. And this process continues its improvement till end. This realm of desire that remains untouched by the fear of death is the fundamental construction that everybody wishes to be part of. Of course, it may be multi-faceted but the structure shall vary from person to person. This is something that not only explains the intrinsic exclusivity of all souls as well as the essential plurality of human existence. A desire can look a very selfish concern at the first glance but all desires have an in-built design for the other's role. In the Part-IV of this series, I have explained the factor of “the other” but here, I would only say that the desire is the only force which builds the basic equation between the self and the other. This equation may turn out to be a question of ethics but it's the subsequent question. The primary force shall remain a function of desire.

No comments: