Saturday, March 23, 2013

Oh, the Good Old Days...

The other day, I heard someone say how life was so much better when they were young.
Really? Is that true?
 Most of us have heard the usual glories about the good old days, how kids played out every evening (no TV, computers and Smart Phones), drank water from the stream, were cuffed for answering back by their parents, etc. This was the time when a cut on the shin of boys was a decorative piece to be worn with pride. (Nowadays, a visit to the doctor or a trip to Child Welfare may be the first act to follow).
But lamenting about our present does not tell the whole story. As a psychometrician, for whom generalization of data plays an important part, let’s not forget that the life-expectancy rate has gone up substantially over the years, our knowledge base has expanded to astronomical levels, availability of information to fuel our knowledge is only a computer-click away, and there is a slow but sure provision of basic necessities for most if not all of our citizens. Today’s average man/woman would most likely be better off than the Royalty of the past (in terms of physical comforts, of course).
I believe when people talk of the glory years of the past, they do not refer to it so much with respect to their physical and financial well-being, but on the basis of how simple life was and the emotional satisfaction it provided. A big pull towards this type of thinking is the acceptance of the fact that ignorance is bliss. In other words, we did not know how much better we could be (financially and physically). We were not such a “spread-about” society (more so now with the internet) than we were then. We lived in our cocoons and it provided the nourishment and emotional requirements we needed.  Of course, the desire for more was always curtailed by the fact that there was no “more” available. Those who prospered and were more than satiated with the status quo satisfied their conscious with a percentage of their discretionary incomes to charity; a discretionary income that was not that high in today’s terms but it was higher (and still is) than most others in the world.  
Yes, I can see the lure for any child toward the idea of belonging to a family, being taken care of by “stay-home” moms and “bring-the-bacon (if available)-home” dads, who seldom, if ever, ventured out to achieve their own personal desires and aspirations. But the child soon became an adult, fueled by a conditional mechanism (based on a different society than that in which her/his parents lived) that desired the accomplishment of his/her own expectations. These aspirations were the same held by the child’s parents in the past, but still quite different in a changing society.
The new society is indeed different. The children of today, for example, cannot hide behind the facade of “I can’t do that because of my gender”. The “new” adults function in a much different environment than what their parents did, and are no longer in “servitude” to their children (i.e., parents living for their children).  That does not mean the children are loved less, but in today’s world love is transferable to those who are professionals in taking care of such a need, i.e., the various day-cares and pre-schools that dot our environment. Love is transferable in other ways, too. No longer does the axiom of marriages being made in heaven apply“If I don’t get what I want from you, I’ll transfer my love to someone else”, is the credence by which we live.
 Where does one draw the line? 
The sacrifice for the simple joys in life had to happen.  Not only are our present-day joys very different from what our parents knew them to be, but such aspirations are now easily attainable, albeit with some effort. What was, once upon a time, an aspect that was outside our reach is now not too far in the distance. But there is a requirement for achieving that which we desire. We have structured our lifestyle differently, the result of which is the demise of the simplistic life that we once cherished.  Because of the sacrifice for the simple things in life (which we treasured) we have now transferred ourselves from a society based on survival to that which flourishes (again, in the physical and financial sense, only).
Yes, the price of progress has come at an expense. It has changed us. We have reached the moon because the moon is a concrete place (not made of cheese). It is a far-away place but distances in today’s world are much shorter than those in Jules Verne’s, “Around the World in 80 Days.” Through our vast internet services, we rub shoulders with others who incite new needs within us. Competitiveness becomes the new ball game in the rush to achieve. Our packaging has to be better even if the content of the package are the same. We, in fact, create artificially high standards of living. An itch on the back which was, at one time, erased by a long stick can now only be scratched by a rose-wood rod with a carved “hand” at one end.
But not all “needs” are artificial. Our lives have become better in a physical sense which to a great degree has pacified our mental state as well. We have hot and cold water. We have a wide selection of food to choose from and we try to educate all our kids (however differently education is defined).
Well, what do we know? Common folk not only have their needs taken care of but they become a major source of income generating source.  The not-so-rich and the rich are dependent on each other. They interplay to create their own little piece of heaven on earth (albeit the heavens of the rich and the not-so-rich are world apart). There is a progressive urge to pump money into the economy which is seen as circular instead of a one-sided help from the rich. The poor now have rights and can demand a slice of the pie. It’s not left to the whim and fancy of the fortunate few. Nowadays, the demands of the market are expected to dictate what the true worth of the output is so that a specialist-worker may make more money than the manager. But our needs for physical well-being are limited. They are based on the laws of diminishing returns—one can only eat so much or one can only have so many yachts and homes to live in before their accumulation lose meaning to us.
Enter the age of knowledge and information.
The world is indeed getting smaller. We now know how someone across the world spent their New Year’s Eve without us having started our own celebrations. The obstacles for the common man to reach the top have been cast aside. No longer do you need an acceptance through an audition. You have the U-tube to do that. It’s still not perfected, but toying with grand ideas such as self-esteem and self-actualization are possible. However, although we have it in our power to compete for things that were once unattainable, the competition has also increased through world-wide channels.
But such advances have had a reality check with some other aspects of our lives.  One major outcome of the new revolution is the closing of the gap between the adult and the child in terms of their requirements. As society has transgressed from a need for spirituality to a desire to accumulate, adults in our society have started questioning their responsibilities. The sparkling-eyed joy and love for the matriarchic figure (in particular the mothers) is now found in the hands of teachers at schools. Parents, with their own aspirations, have little time for their children. They, who were to be obeyed at any cost, now find their children’s alliances in the arms of others in their own communities or across the internet.
Everything is available but everything has a price, including one’s emotions.
The net result of so much information provides one interesting fact. There is no real difference between that what is desired by the young (of course, we are not talking about babies, here) and that which has been the privilege only of the adults. Everyone, young and old, desire food, shelter, privacy, sex, etc. Children go to school where they are told what to do while adults go to work where they are told what to do. Adults have a craving for the opposite sex as much as children do (unless, of course, one is too young or too old). This is further compounded when adults, like their children, function not in the role of adults but as competitors for the common needs, which many a times are in direct competition with those of the children. This is especially true in some parts of the Western world where love and affection are desired by a physically over-reaching society that is emotionally deprived.
The only real difference that sets children apart from adults is, of course, the lack of experience. Everything in the Western world is black and white with no shades of grey.  Emotional stability in adults is slowly deteriorating to the point that they are identical between the two groups with one exception:  It’s still raw for the children – still a source for contentment, partly because of society imposed sanctions as to the do’s and don’ts for them to follow. When everything they want is not achievable until they reach full adulthood, they revert back to being children, unlike the hardened adults who exist, so it seems, with serious lack of emotional maturity.  
Before someone pounces on me for suggesting that a gap between adults and non-adults does exist, let me assure them that the gap certainly exist but it is closing. We do not tell “young adults” to do something; we explain to them why it should be done in the first place as we would do to any adult (which I believe is good). We have family conferences in which young-adults may not have a majority voice but they are heard just the same. Such luxuries were not afforded to the children of the by-gone era.
We treat children like young adults, and in the bargain we expect them to act like one. The onus for closing the gap, therefore, has nothing to do with the desires of the child but it has always rested on the need of the adult. That does not mean the adult is at fault. It simply means that through learned experiences and the scientific data available to adults, young adults are seen as a younger version of adults rather than as children. For example, corporal punishment is not accorded to young adults. It is not something adults, themselves, would like in the first place. That type of punishment is frowned upon even on people whom we consider are our enemies.
Many of the “new” adults have a need to further their own agenda, which in turn may mean that the young-adults at home may have to prepare their own meals or go out and get their own dinner.  The gaps gets closer when both the young-adult and the adult hunt for similar desires or trophies, be it someone to love or the quest in winning fame and fortune. The platform is even, the baseline is the same. In the bargain, many young-adults use parents for food and shelter (sub-consciously, of course) in much the same way they feel they have been used for whatever the parents received from their birth. After all parents had brought them into this world, therefore, food and shelter, and most importantly being left alone, is an entitlement.        
While the desire for the past with its “emotionally advanced” population may be a the requirement of many a person who lives in today’s society, the settling question for the on-going debate lies simply on the basis of whether one would trade off what we have today for what we had then? Of course, it goes without saying that we would trade some parts of our lives for some parts in the past, but if we had only two choices with an either-or- decision to go to the distinct past or stay in the present, what would we do?
While some may talk of the advantages of living in the past from an argumentative point with the safety for never having to do that, I do believe that some people, who have a remembrance of America’s hey-days in the 60s and the 70s, sincerely would opt for the past. Presumably, some of these people would willingly trade-off the material advances of today for the simplicity of life in the years past. I, however, could not have functioned in the society of the past. I would not know what to do if the microwave was not available, and my smart phone did not provide me on the spur of the moment GPS coordinates.  =)
How deprived am I emotionally? In the context of the past, I am deprived, but I am of the opinion that a new definition for emotions needs to be formulated. We are, after all, a society of creators. Perhaps a time has come for new emotions to wash out the old ones.
What say you?

Sunday, March 10, 2013

Desert Gossip

Every now and then, I'll place one of my paintings on my blog. Here is a painting which is one of my favorites. I wish I had made a copy before I sold it but...

(Desert Gossip)
Husein Taherbhai
Oil on canvas
36” × 48

Friday, March 8, 2013

Death of Poetry

Death of Poetry
(…and its implications, thereof)

            Societal progress in our world is measured in terms of techno-excellence. It is the advancement of our technological performance, perhaps our preoccupation with it,
who many believe, is a prerequisite for our desire of a higher standard of living for our masses. But like many societies of the past, the growing affluence of the masses does not curb societies’ desire for aesthetics but rather heightens their senses to new vistas, new awareness, and a surge towards creativity. This was true before the Renaissance with its single-dimension portrayals, and later on in the post-Renaissance period when realism hit the scene and further stretched it to abstractionism and to Picasso’s cubism.
            The spoken word, too, remained parallel with the visual senses, awakening to the words of Byron and Keats, Emerson and Blake, Woodworth and Dickinson. But here too, as society became more modernistic it imposed its will so that the structure of poetry, written in precise syllabus and rhyme, now opened its arms to free-flowing words.
            In today’s world, we acknowledge the changes that have, and are occurring in the pleasuring of our senses. We acknowledge the changes, however grudgingly, but we have never abstained from partaking in its pleasures. Our fixation with the hi-tech world of computers and the sciences cannot, or should not, deprive the evolvement of our inner-self, which most of us crave; albeit some of us more than others.
We are engulfed in discussions on the virtues of cloning better human beings, but shouldn’t “better” reflect the evolution of both our physical and mental state? If we ignore the passion for the written word, aren’t we creating a society of mechanical beings that do not require a heart? Do we even need to have children? We can learn to love our mechanical geniuses, our robots that can communicate with us in correctly constructed grammatical sentences but have no power to pacify the savage beast that sometime lurks in our hearts.
            As Blake would have stated, it is the poet that hones our appreciation of the “words” to sweeter delights. Or as I would like to state:    

The poets
imaginative fragments
in assorted puzzles,
with godly senses
they hope,
creating soothing or
tempestuous lyrics,
before being summoned,
to a rendezvous
with the righteousness
of the rhyme.
Husein Taherbhai

            It may be a bit presumptuous and rather arrogant of poets to assert godliness to their work, but their effort at creating soothing or tempestuous lyrics cannot be ignored. It breathes life in an otherwise dormant, robot-like society; it creates a soul to transcend the physical pleasures to glories of the heart. By depriving students of the joys of poetry is tantamount to raising a futuristic society without one aspect of the fuel that nourishes its heart, and that under any circumstances would be a heavy price to pay, i.e., creating a society surviving with partially evolved hearts.
Imagine the medical dilemma that would cause!