|
|
|
 |
29th April 2015
This article is prompted by the excerpt Lebedyev On the Tendency Underlying the Railways.
In Lebedyev the moral sentiment is expressed in terms of a preference for a given aesthetic: which is one that implies that that which is closer to natural beauty is likely to be better (and presumably truer) than that which is away from it. This is contrasted with a more 'utilitarian' aesthetic (if indeed there is something such as an utilitarian aesthetic).
The argument is that whatever reasonings and arguments be given in favour of an 'utilitarian aesthetic' it will remain unjust and unequal as compared to an ethic moulded by a 'natural aesthetic'.
What can one say about this? Does a person having a sensibility that aligns closely with nature likely to be more ethical than one who is more utilitarian in his disposition, or, alternately, possesses a lesser affinity with the more refined characteristics of nature?
At a gut level one would be inclined to say yes. But it is difficult to prove the argument. Because any argument that tries to prove it will most likely have to assume to begin with some form of the notion that "that which is natural is superior". That is, the proof will be proving the axiom.
The second could be to assert on the basis that "that which is more perfect is more beautiful and truer, and, hence, worth pursuing." Now, anything natural is likely to be more perfect than anything that is man-made: if for nothing else than the fact that nature has had much longer period to fashion all its phenomena. Further, from observation we know that all natural phenomena are self-reflexive and self-corrective. That is, they have in themselves a feedback loop to constantly adjust their very character. When carried out over a sufficiently long period of time, we know that such a process can move the phenomenon away from that which is destructive to itself and towards that which is self-generating / self-sustaining. This natural phenomenon in turn ensures that all other natural phenomena have within them the essence of perfection in form of an intricate refinement that exceeds anything that the human mind can conceive in its absolute totality. This, in turn, makes any contact with this kind of refinement a super-sensible experience: something that no man-made object and invention can even crudely approximate.
As an analogy: try to visualize an apple phone (that has as its attraction its form). Then, try to remove the form from consideration and imagine the electronics inside the phone. Continue the visualization to greater and greater level of details till you reach each semiconductor and its impossible connections with several other semiconductors in a complex circuitry. Try to imagine the electric current pulsating through that circuitry. Further imagine the diminution in time scale at which that current pulsates. So on and so forth. Of course, there will be a point where the imagination will reach its limits and tires out. Now try a similar exercise with a natural phenomenon and the mind reaches a point where it knows there is a deeper truth but simply does not know how to proceed further because there seems an infinite regress when any natural phenomenon is concerned. Indeed, if we come back to our analogy of the phone and try to keep moving forward we come to the realm of quantum mechanics wherein the man-made object loses its identity and the natural phenomenon really takes control.
However, this is unlikely to appeal to everyone. The above are forms of mind-made arguments that use faculty of thinking, of imagination to give a concrete shape to deeply felt intuitions. The above can be worked out to as much level of sophistication and logical impeccability as needed but will still leave doubt. There is another test that overcomes this difficulty: which is that of direct perception. That is, acutely monitoring the state of one's mind and body when it is in tune with a given phenomenon. It is a test that is possible for every reasonably healthy individual to carry out. However, it needs some practice because it requires building up of powers of concentration. Concentration does not preceede the feeling of natural aesthetic. Indeed a preliminary appreciation of some kind of refined aesthetic is necessary to actually get the mind to concentrate in the first place. But let us jump over that difficulty right now. Assuming that a reasonable power exists of stabilizing and concentrating the mind, it is possible to compare the perception and feeling borne of a natural and man-made phenomenon in sufficient detail.
Even those who can't perceive can possibly imagine such a state of being. Now, which phenomenon when acutely felt is likely to lead to a state of mind that is more relaxed, more joyous and more peaceful? Without even physically going through this exercise, each of us would tend to veer in the direction that a natural phenomenon, when perceived and seen and understood in sufficient level of detail would lead to a certain 'natural' joy that no man-made phenomenon will be able to come close to.
The above is not a proof per se. It is a validation and vindication of an intuition that our mind knows and understands very well deep down. Things such as the above cannot have a 'proof' as we would understand by the conventional usage of the term 'proof'. Things such as the above need the 'apparatus' of a proof to break-down and remove the errors in our thinking. That is, by breaking down and walking through our thoughts one step at a time to show where we have really veered off track and how much crust and fluff we have built up on our deeply felt natural intuitions.
The ultimate question of course is: if it is within the grasp of every individual to decide for himself through direct experience that a natural aesthetic is definitively superior to many other known types and that if one fashions one's character, values, temper and conduct in line with such an aesthetic one is certainly likely to lead a far more ethical, beneficial and a more joyous life, why do not most of us do it?
In Lebedyev, such a natural sentiment was more a result of an ingrained religious fervour. But this fervour sat comfortably side-by-side with a ruthless practicality borne of the base-kind of self-seeking behaviour. This admixture of incompatible tendencies is manifest in each of us in different proportions and is explained in different terms in different religions and philosophies. In "The Idiot" it is seen quite easily in Lebedyev: though whether that admixture is feigned or real is very difficult to tell throughout the novel. That is, we do not know if Lebedyev is really acting at times or the fact that he is just as twisted as he appears to be.
If one wants to get really abstruse, one could say the answer is both. And if we want to give it a philosphical turn we would say that it signifies that we do not know the nature of our own minds. But then, that is stretching the fabric of obscurity way too much. But yes, it is always more re-assuring to perceive the truth for oneself without going through philosophical difficulties.
So, to not confuse our mind with philosophy, we should really test the 'natural truth'. And in this, the Buddha could not have been more forceful, direct and profound when he said:
"... Now Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when undertaken and carried out, lead to welfare and to happiness" --- then you should enter & remain in them."
Internalizing the meaning of this is far more difficult than what may appear at first, second and third readings. Especially the phrase "then you should enter & remain in them."
| |
|