The Composition of Our Lives

More than a creative written work, the word composition reminds me of a mixture of ingredients, as in Chemistry. With that meaning in mind, I have entitled this post as “the composition of our lives.” However, that shouldn’t give you the impression that this post is about the chemical composition of our lives(what does that mean anyway?). Not at all! Rather this is only a humble attempt to present my analysis of what constitutes our lives. In other words, at the end of our lives, when we look back, what are the ingredients that make up our lives? The list I am going to give might not resonate with that of your’s, as you might have your own list, and that’s fair.

Before I present my list, I should share with you the concept of emergence. That concept will help in making more sense of my list. Christian Smith in his book What is a Person? notes: “Emergence involves the following: First, two or more entities that exist at a “lower” level interact or combine. Second, that interaction or combination serves as the basis of some new, real entity that has existence at a “higher” level. Third, the existence of the new higher-level entity is fully dependent upon the two or more lower-level entities interacting or combining, as they could not exist without doing so. Fourth, the new, higher-level entity nevertheless possesses characteristic qualities (e.g., structures, qualities, capacities, textures, mechanisms) that cannot be reduced to those of the lower-level entities that gave rise to the new entity possessing them” (26). When these four things happen, Smith considers emergence to have happened. The example that he provides is that of water (H20). Hydrogen (H) and Oxygen (O) combine to form a new thing, water, that is quite unlike either H or O. The physical and chemical characteristics of water are quite different from that of it’s constituent ingredients. Anyway, the whole point in presenting this concept and elaborate quote is to say that the three ingredients that I am going to present combine or interact and result in the emergence of life – not in the biological sense, but in the sense of a lived life. 

After all that hype, here’s my list: experiments, experiences, and memories. These three aspects are correlative, and they mutually shape and modify one another, and make up our lives. If we consider our lives to constitute the correlative wheel of experiments, experiences, and memories, then it is possible that at times one of these aspects might function as a hub and influences the other two. Some other times another aspect might take the position of the hub and influence the other two aspects of the correlative wheel of life. Before I lose you, let me explain: For instance, at the age of ninety, memories may serve as the hub of the correlative wheel of our lives. Similarly during childhood, experiments could serve as the hub. This is all hypothetical, but the point that I am trying to make is that, although all the three aspects make up our lives, one might play a major role at one particular point of time. Without any hint of doubt, however, all the three of them keep operating throughout our lives.  At this point, one may ask, aren’t experiments not experiences, and wouldn’t experiments and experiences form memories? The answer is: yes, they are and they will, yet they are not replaceable with one another. They are almost like the three forms that water can take: ice, water, and water vapor. To conclude, the three aspects – experiments, experiences, and memories – combine or interact and constitute our lives.  

The Three Great Tragedies

Have you ever wondered what could some of the great tragedies in life be? As I considered the question, the following three tragedies topped my list. Without any hint of doubt, most of us would agree that the loss of someone dear to us could be the greatest of all tragedies in life. The reason for that is obvious: the feeling of loss of a dear one is more often than not irreparable, and the dear one, irreplaceable. The only thing that might survive is the memory of that person. The closer the person is to us, the greater the memories, and as a result, the greater the amount of pain and grief caused by the loss. I have experienced a few deaths in my extended family and I know what death could bring upon the lives of the surviving family members. One of my uncles and his family were crushed by my cousin’s unexpected death at quite a young age. Similarly, the death of my grandmother had literally led to the death of my grandfather – He just didn’t want to live after he lost his wife, and he fasted to death. These kinds of experiences are not unique to me; either you or people from your life might have been terribly affected by the death of their dear ones. The confusion, shock, and emptiness of the loss conglomerate and present a bitter pill of reality to swallow; and such pill, many people reckon, to be so bitter that they would rather count their own death to be less bitter, just like my grandpa did.

Closely following the tragedy caused by death is the tragedy caused by loneliness, which in a way seems like the foretaste of death. In fact, recently, a report on social isolation and its impacts on mortality in the TIME magazine makes it clear that social isolation, which is closely related to the feeling of loneliness, leads to early deaths. There are quite a few studies on loneliness and how the “progress” that we boast of has indeed led us to loneliness and isolation. Instead of having more time on our hands to spend with our near and dear ones, and to pursue the hobbies that we like, our lives have become cogs in the great money-making-machine. Some of us are in the illusion that we are connected more than ever through social media such as Facebook, Twitter, etc., but the fact of the matter is that we are so superficially connected that our deeper longing for love and communion are far from being met. The Atlantic has published a thought provoking article, entitled: “Is Facebook Making Us Lonely?”, which speaks to that fact. The article points out that “new research suggests that we have never been lonelier (or more narcissistic) – and that this loneliness is making us mentally and physically ill.”

In addition to the two tragedies that I have mentioned, another grave tragedy of life, in my opinion, is the loss of the ability to feel – be it with someone, or for someone. Being able to feel with someone is nothing but having compassion. Marcus Borg in his Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, talking about the importance of compassion in the life and work of Jesus, parses the word and maintains that compassion “means feeling the feelings of somebody in a visceral way, at a level somewhere below the level of the head.” He adds that compassion is commonly associated with feeling the suffering of somebody else and being moved by that suffering to do something. That means this ability of being able to feel the joys or sorrows of others is what enables us to move beyond ourselves and consider the good of others. Further, Borg drives home the point that “to be compassionate” is what is meant by the New Testament command “to love.” Love and compassion, therefore, seem to serve as antidote to the narcissistic drives that we are forced to foster by the media and the great money-making-machine. Dalai Lama said it well: “Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive.” Drawing on the words of the Dalai Lama, it seems to me that the day we cease to be compassionate and to love, we cease to exist as humanity, and that, is indeed a great tragedy. 

Trust

It is not uncommon for financial institutions to give loans based on an applicant’s capacity to repay. Therefore, the more assets a person has, or the more stable his or her job is, the more probability of getting a loan. Even if one doesn’t have assets or a secure job, he or she should know someone with assets or a secure job to give surety for the loan. We all know that, in reality, the person who doesn’t have assets or stable income has more need of a loan, but the financial institutions don’t work in that fashion. I totally understand the logic, and of course, I know that the operating principle of the financial institutions is not charity. And I am not arguing that charity should be the guiding principle. The purpose of presenting the picture of the financial institutions and the loan applicants’ situation is to introduce the manner in which some people/institutions trust others – they need to be sure of the ability of the person before making a move. This is the same manner in which educational institutions operate. They want to know the applicant’s previous achievements and accordingly honor the applicant with admission and financial offers etc. Please know that I am not against such a strategy, but I wish to move on to provide another manner in which people place trust in others. 

There will be times when we cannot make a decision based on pure reasoning. We have to go by the gut feelings. You are stranded somewhere and you need a ride – at that time, you don’t know if the person who is offering you a ride is a saint or a serial killer. I am sure, that is an extreme example. Consider this then: You are in a situation to hire someone, and you are in a dilemma because you have to choose one from two applicants that have similar experience and qualifications. That’s when you resort to gut feelings. (This happens in the context of educational institutions and financial institutions too. But the situation is a little complex in such settings because the gut feelings of different people on the selection board might be different, those gut feelings need to be rationalized to find support from other members of the board and to come to a consensus.) Although the example of the two applicants has slightly diverted my intended point, what is to be understood is that at times when we make decisions based on our gut feelings it seems like we are standing on sinking sand, when compared to the decisions based on sound reasoning. But that’s far from truth. 

Neither of the manners in which people operate while placing trust in others is fail proof. Let’s go back to our examples: despite all the care that the financial institutions take, there will be defaulters. Similarly, the decision of the admission committees is prone to questioning when someone highly qualified and with many achievements doesn’t perform well upon joining the academic program. The same kind of possibility of being misdirected by our gut feelings is inevitable. We sometimes end up with a lousy and annoying co-worker because of our choice based on our gut feelings. So, the point is that there is a possibility of error in both instances. Before I conclude, let me remind you that, though I have presented reason and feelings as two opposing forces, it shouldn’t be thought so; they complement each other. Finally, the reason in writing this note at this time of thanksgiving season is to be thankful to all those in my life who have placed their trust in me, either based on my previous achievements or simply based on their gut feelings.

A Few Afterthoughts on the Killing of Osama Bin Laden

“We recognize a person’s dignity or worth when we give him credit for what he has done. The amount we give is inversely proportional to the conspicuousness of the causes of his behavior. If we do not know why a person acts as he does, we attribute his behavior to him. We try to gain additional credit for ourselves by concealing the reasons why we behave in given ways or by claiming to have acted for less powerful reasons. We avoid infringing on the credit due to others by controlling them inconspicuously.”

These are lines from a summary paragraph in the chapter “Dignity” in B.F. Skinner’s Beyond Freedom and Dignity. This is the first time I have ever read Skinner, and I started reading it just because the New York Times recommended it, saying: “If you plan to read only one book this year [1971], this is probably the one you should choose!” Let alone reading, I have never heard Skinner’s name before, and I did not know that he was a Professor of Psychology at Harvard University and that he was named as the most influential psychologist of the 20^th century, until I read the Wikipedia entry on Skinner. Anyway, as I was reading the book, I was also thinking about the recent killing of Osama Bin Laden. When I came to this paragraph, it somehow seemed very appropriate to what I was thinking about the whole episode.

Perhaps we have not given Bin Laden the credit that he deserves. By giving the due credit, we might be able to recognize his dignity or worth. In no way I am discussing if Bin Laden has dignity or not, nor justify his actions, I am only trying to find something that is worth giving him some credit for, so as to recognize his dignity. Let me reiterate my attempt here is not to deify (or, demonize further) Bin Laden, but to make conspicuous something that deserves some credit. By demonizing or deifying someone, I reckon, we relegate that person out of the human sphere, and that is not fair.

What deserves credit then? I think because of Bin Laden we were able to see the patterns of power structures in the world. Although President Bush used the statement “you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists” in his September 21, 2001 address, and tried to persuade others to choose sides, it has yielded a false dilemma; meaning it proved that there was middle ground between the two options that Bush presented and many countries chose that option. Whether a country has responded to the call positively or not, we all know that countries are not innocent powers, and that every country has its own stakes and interests, and therefore they responded to the call accordingly. Even in that fashion, in the wake of “War on Terror,” we were able to mark the political alignments on the world stage.