Goodness Gracious YOU! : Why being good is good

I'm not a nice guy.

And i have many people, events and conditions to vouch for it. I am usually polite, until put under duress. I give a specific amount of respect to all humans (strangers and all), until they start acting up, then it either goes up or down from there. I help out people in need and am resourceful in whatever way i can, but not often as i'd like to. Not very sunny and pleasant mostly and also have a bad habit of pedantic nitpicking and being biased on certain issues (or have strong opinions). I'm impulsive and rise to the bait in an instant if there is  aleast bit instigation (if you step on my feet,you won't get ya toes back) .

But, i'm a good guy! 

How's that you ask, incredulously! because i solemnly wish every being on the planet, nothing but the best. Because, i have good intentions behind every action of mine. Because, i not only understand but apply the law of karma ( believe it or not!) and i constantly seek and act to better myself (mentally,physically,morally and spiritually). That's enough to qualify me in the good book for myself ( doubt, there's a god's book) . 

But as far i may have come in being a good boy, its only after several cringing, embarrassing, painful and sometimes humble experiences. And it worked only when i applied them! But let it be known, that i did not become good  from finally throwing my hands and submitting to the hypocritical pangs of our society, but rather through deep spiritual introspection , intelligent empirical investigation and countless efforts trying all the tools in the shed. This wasn't an epiphany , but rather a gradual realization of the immutable and ubiquitous universal laws at work.

No, this is not a fuckin' Secret but a personal revelation. The things that i'm about to say have been iterated and proved since times immemorial, and we hear about them day in, day out (for a reason as well).  However, they do not become true for you , unless you realize it for yourself! When you do, many things (concepts,events,people) become lucid and concrete and you are overtaken by a sense of calm joy.

So, anyways ...Here's why you should be good! 

1.)  Not because THEY say so !:

Ever since infancy we are taught through a series of rewards and punishments  (words,gift,love) to be good . We not being evolved/intelligent at that age , jump through the hoops and do as instructed to get what we want (usually love,gifts,appreciation). As time passes and we get busy with other societal traps (education,jobs,family) we rarely question why and take it to be our reality. Being Good , in most cultures is being obedient (religiously follow the status quo) , and respectful/generous/loving. While i agree with the latter virtues consituting goodness i have a problem with how they are imposed upon our psyches through religion!  

The goodness is gauged and dictated by gods up above ( or his people down below..LOL) and followers are preached that if they are good , God loves them , will grant their wishes and will welcome them into paradise post-death. BUT (this is a big but) if they are bad, they will be punished for it and spend their afterlives in a burning pot of hot oil in hell,while satan watches Baywatch (according to the latest addendum). Well, i have a problem with this concept, and even though it is obviously antiquated and banal, people rarely question or revolt against it, fearing all the social backlash they'll receive.

What you should do : Well , if i was to be absolutist in my recommendation,there would be little difference in me and the institution i'm opposed to.So, here is what you may do: Be skeptical, i cannot stress this enough, be very skeptical and incredulous about what you see,hear and say, as it takes little time for what we see ,hear and repeat to become our beliefs and eventually our reality. So, screw a pinch take everything with a pint of salt!  Another thing... Ask questions, using your logic and rationale and dont stop until convinced or satiated  and then take action with volition with a condition that you may and can change your beliefs if you find a philosophy (or any other operating system) that suits your nature! 

2.) It's More Productive.... Duh! :

Of course, i wasn't going to put a schmaltzy reason as the title, so catering to your left-brain, i had to put in productivity. Let's get clear about the meaning first, being productive is completing your work/task in a quality fashion in the shortest period of time in a flow,without many interruptions or distractions.

If you're doing all that a normal ethical human does, i.e: being good. Then, your conscience will be much spotless as you are less likely to feel guilt,fear or other mentally debilitating feelings, hence allowing you to work at your optimum best. Talking about my case, whenever i do,say or even think ill of something/one i feel a feeling that is a weird cocktail of malaise, lethargy and irritation. that doesn't leave me until i get the issue sorted out. Until then, i cant seem to do merde (pardon my french) ! i keep on obsessing about the thing causing inordinate amounts of self-inflicted pain,tension and dormancy. Hence, i'm not a productive person, when i'm bad.

However, if i'm good. then i have no care in the world and so can carry on doin' my thizzle (work,for ya luddites) with all my gusto and in a continuous free flow. If i wish am at peace with all the things and people around me and wish them well in their lives. In such a case, practically no negative feeling/emotion can enter/hinder me from being productive. Harboring ill will and even the slightest of dislike can impair your productivity to a great extent and affects the quality of your work.


3.)  Affects your Street Cred:

Now, whether we like it or not, our reputation ( in your house,workplace,society) matters....a lot. This often determines the kind of human relations , future opportunities (work), support system and also your holistic development as a human. A person , who is generally perceived as bad/unpleasant is usually avoided and shunned in most social situations. Human Negativity is palpable and communicable, and very few people would like to transfer others' poison into their system. 

However, a person who is perceived as good by the society, is a social magnet and people are drawn to him due to the palpable positive vibes people intercept from him.People feel more obliged and willing to help  the good person in case of a problem.He might get an edge over others in case of opportunities and goodwill of the people.

Disclaimer:  I'm in no way implying that one should be good for social acceptance,these are however the repercussions of the goodness. Moreover,the benefits of being good for oneself far outweigh those for the society. One is able to impact and contribute as a good member of society.

4.) Law of Karma:

Now, Now..Don't get your knickers in a twist. I'm not alluding to a mystical spiritual philosophy when talking about karma. All i'm saying is that. human being is a creature of manifested beliefs. hence, whatever he believes to be true becomes true....for him! A terrorist can believe he is a good person and then do horrific inhumane things, because that was in his definition of goodness to hurt others for a higher purpose. But the immutable fact remains, that hurting (yourself/others) only brings with it bad karma, there's no two ways about it.

So, if you've committed an evil act, you are bound to be punished for it, the very same moment (not in hell,dawg!) and if you do something that is good, you're rewarded then and there.Karma is always at work, one way or another.So, all your passions,impulses and appetites must be kept under great control and supervision. Now that you know about it, might as well learn to use it in your favor. Goodness/ Virtue in your thoughts, visions and actions can help you and your cause immensely and propel you to heights of greatness in all your endeavors, if you're mindful of all your actions.

Peace.Awareness.Goodness.

Read More »

A new theology (part I): Stoic cosmology as a practicable religion

The Grand Universe - the manifestation of the Logos (in my view)

Before you, dear reader, start bombarding me with the accusation of harbouring the much despised tentacles of pseudo-science in the brief context of this article, please believe me when I say (honestly) that I am a staunch atheist. Even though I have been raised in an environment that breeds vocal, militant theists (and I have had been one, myself), I gradually learned to question the very foundation of my own, ill-informed and narrow belief system. And my humble understanding of the scientific method, something that I treasure lovingly, aided and accelerated the process. And finally, the Hegelian clash between the thesis (predominantly theistic beliefs) and the antithesis (gradually concluded agnosticism) gave birth to the synthesis, a belief system that is more open, flexible and yet better informed than its predecessor.

Big words for a rookie, you might be thinking, and I do agree. In this vast expanse of time, space, energy and matter, can we, with our laughingly limited understanding of the mysteries of the heavens, ever hope to get it all? Maybe not, but that's exactly the point here. But before I hammer you with more egotistic gibberish, let us brush up our understanding of the Logos, a well-reasoned, coherent and (logically) sound conception of the divine. 

What is the Logos? 

This section is primarily for the non-Stoic readers, or those amongst you that are new to Hellenistic philosophy. So, what is the Logos? Defining the term, or even attempting to wrap up its meaning within the finite extent of a single sentence, is a very hard task. In fact, the Stoics themselves have different opinions, as to what the Logos is, or how it can be defined, etc. But for the purpose of our article, let us get the historical background of the concept. 

Logos is a concept, originally conceived by the famously eccentric (and some would add, rude) pre-Socratic thinker, Heraclitus. Although not a very avuncular person, Heraclitus nonetheless had been hailed as one of the founding fathers of proto-Stoicism by Erik Wiegardt, the founding father of Newstoa. His Flux theory has been the subject of many controversies and misinterpretations, thanks to his rather cryptic style of documenting his philosophy. And along similar lines, the meaning of Logos has been greatly debated upon. 

But one thing is clear, the Logos was originally meant to denote reason. In other explanations, it has been shown to refer to word, more in the theistic sense of the term (usually, utterance of God, word of God, etc). In fact, the names of academic disciplines that end with logy, such as Biology, Physiology, Psychology, Metereoloy and Ornithology, have been derived from Logos. In this sense, Logos may also refer to the complete understanding, or knowledge, of something. 

Later, the founding members of the early Stoa made common cause with Heraclitus, in their physics. Logos in Stoicism, the Stoic physics to be more precise, refers to a divine reason or will, that is the inherent characteristic of Nature itself. Everything in the universe is brought into being by this Logos, and the preservation of all things happens under the custody of this divine reason. Likewise, anything that denies the Logos, or walks not in accordance to it, faces extinction. Much like Darwin's survival of the fittest. The Stoics regard the Logos as a divine, dynamic fire, that pervades and permeates the whole cosmos. Being predominantly materialistic, the Stoic physics makes room (pun intended) for the Logos by proposing, that although the Logos is material itself (i.e it needs space to exist), it does occupy the same space with the passive component of the universe, matter (which it manipulates). This is so, because the Logos and matter are inextricable. A drop of wine, argues Chrysippus, can mix fully with a glass of water, and each drop of the watery content of the glass now retains the properties of the wine, no matter how minuscule that be. 

A modern twist: what modern physics says about it all 

Personally, I feel that Stoicism is a very flexible philosophy. As such, the Stoic Physics can easily be be modified, so that it suits the taste of the modern reader. So, let us attempt to do so.

Any reader with even a passing interest in popular science, will know something about the Big Bang theory (not the sitcom, Bazinga!). Discussing it in detail is beyond the scope of this post, but to give a short, approximate and oversimplified introduction, it states that the universe (including space and time) arose out of an enormous implosion of matter and energy, some 13.8 billion years ago. It is commonly accepted that there's no before the event, because time itself started at the moment of the Big Bang. The same goes for space - there wasn't any preexisting void into which the universe was born, although this is what most people seem to conclude from this theory. Instead, space itself came into being, when time was born. It's like inflating a balloon. It's total surface area (given by 4 x pi x r^2, if it's perfectly spherical) increases alongside its volume.

The 3-dimensional expansion in space is actually a consequence of the 4-dimensional inflation of the universe. And what exactly caused this Big Bang, is not yet understood. The laws of physics begin to work from T+10^(-43) s onwards, i.e 1/10.... (43 zeroes!) seconds after the Big Bang. Before that, we face what is known as the singularity, where even the golden laws of Quantum Physics and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity begin to break down (i.,e produce meaningless results).

Does the universe need a creator?

Einstein's famous, yet infamously misunderstood (and misinterpreted) equation, E=mc^2, denotes that matter and energy are equivalent. One can be transformed into the other. And from the law of conservation of energy, we know it well, that energy can't come out of nothing! Does that mean, there must be some sort of creator, who caused the Big Bang?

Not necessarily. Stephen Hawking's pioneering research, coupled with Alan Guth's Inflationary Big Bang Theory (a theory that attempts to apply the laws of Quantum Physics onto the microscopic universe, following the Big Bang), shows that energy can, indeed, come out of, well, nothing. This is because of something known as the negative energy.

When an electrically neutral neutron decays, it can give rise to equally, oppositely, charged electron and proton, as well as another uncharged antineutrino. Likewise, the mathematical framework of the Hawking Radiation from black holes, suggests that, due to extreme gravity beside the event horizon of supermassive black holes, space itself is curved and stretched, thereby yielding pairs of particles and antiparticles. These can immediately annihilate each other, if they come into direct contact.

So, there's a strong possibility, that the energy in the universe (which created the universe itself, btw, because all matter is but the condensed form of that energy) arose out of nothing.

You may ask, then, what could have caused, rather triggered, the Big Bang? People like St. Aquinas would argue that there must have been some sort of First Mover, or First Cause, and that is God. Once again, not necessarily. Pioneering advancements in modern physics have shown, that there are causeless events in the universe. For example, quantum decays are famously causeless, they just simply happen. Ancient philosophers, no matter how intelligent they were, lacked the scientific method. Therefore, their empirical observations were based on the experiences of the macroscopic world. And it is, generally, in the macroscopic world, that we see the relationship between the cause and the event, i.e the causation.

Even Lemaitre's solutions to Einstein's relativistic equations, showed that the universe must have been truly small, at the beginning. Hubble's observations concluded that, and today, it is accepted that the early universe had been microscopic. Naturally, Guth's premise holds true - it must obey the laws of Quantum Mechanics. So, couldn't the universe have been causeless as well? While pseudo-scientists (mainly fundamentalist types) would strangle us to death, if we don't accept their 'reasoning', I believe we can safely conclude, that there's a possibility of the Big Bang having been a causeless event (but there are, I agree, disagreements. For example, M Theory's Ekpyrotic Universe model, or Hawking's No-Boundary Proposal, are different).

So, where's the Logos? 

How about understanding the Logos as this energy, that creates and manipulated the universe? Yes, Stoic Physics argues that there's a different between active Logos and passive matter, and modern physics shows that matter and energy are equivalent, but it's true, definitely, that matter continues to be mostly passive, and energy manipulates it (and from here, we're delving into philosophy once again, because science doesn't deal with theology).

Mechanics 101 tells us, that forces influence, or attempt to influence, bodies. Energy produces these forces, because work done by the force is a measure of the energy spent by the system in doing it. So, can't we take a small leap of faith, and assume that this is, analogically, similar to the basic premise of the Stoic Physics?

Obviously, there's a subtler difference to tackle. Logos is considered conscious, while the energy, that drives the cosmos, isn't so. While the gravitational interaction (one of the 4 fundamental forces in the standard model of particle physics) is strong, - it binds together the earth and heavens, gives birth to the stars and destroys them al the same, keeps solar systems in balance can can disrupt them nonetheless - it would be rather awkward to pray to it, right?

But that's where, according to me, atheism meets theism!

Theistic doctrines are primarily meant to help people live a purposeful and meaningful life, understand the nature of the universe around them, and achieve mental peace and happiness, all the while ensuring that their happiness doesn't come at the cost of others' comfort or joy.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is a natural consequence of man's rationality, a plantling born from the seed of scepticism. It is fuelled by intuitive reasoning, and is a far more logical belief system, compared to theism. Thanks to the atrocities committed in the name of religions, and an absolute lack of verifiable evidence regarding the supernatural, atheism grew out of it (my personal opinion).

Now, it is true, that most conventional religions are of absolutely no value, when it comes to peace of mind. Why should we accept page after page of ridiculous mythologies and erotic fables, just in order to find peace? Religion remains audaciously, and overly, vocal. Each religion, be it Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Hellenism or Jainism, remains adamant that their theology is The Truth. And in this chaotic tug-of-war, man can find entertainment, false promises and superstitions, but not the peace of mind. This is where philosophies enter the scene.

Halfway between theism and atheism 

Using the term in a very loose and overly simplified sense, let us, therefore, strive to find the Golden Mean between the two extremes, a blind belief in everything supernatural, and an immediate rejection the same.

Atheism is a negative philosophical stand, and should not, therefore, be expected to provide any purpose to our lives. It is useful, though, because it helps us apply rationalism and scepticism to rid ourselves of blind, baseless superstitions (that weaken the mind, and often develop in OCDs).

Here's where Pragmatism, in general, and Model-dependent realism, in specific, come into effect. Explaining the latter would take another article, but you can read one that I wrote some years ago on my main blog, if you like (HERE). Basically, model-dependent realism gives us the flexibility to develop (and improve) theories, within the internal frameworks of which, things can be considered apparently real, this reality being subjective to the internal logic of the model. For example, quarks were first proposed mathematically, and it was only later, that they were indirectly verified.

Likewise, let us consider the Stoic Cosmology/Theology in the light of this concept. The concept, that the Logos is the energy that is apparently conscious (i.e seems to be conscious to us, although the truth is beyond our current understanding) within the framework of our theology in question, is backed by some pieces of indirect evidence. The emergence of intelligent organisms from the Logos seems to indicate a certain order that is the inherent property of the Logos, or energy. All laws of physics are indirect pieces of evidence supporting it. That there is order in the universe, is beyond question (unless you get really Cartesian). So, the only leap of faith we need to take, as part of our model, is to believe, that the order in the universe translates into a meaningful, purposeful scheme of gradual evolution of the universe itself.

May we learn to live in according, with the Logos

There's a theory, no matter how wacky it may sound, that the whole universe might be some sort of cosmic computer, that it constantly computing it's own gradual evolution. And we're but components, constituting the system. The Stoic position, that the universe is (like) a conscious organism, a sort of Superbeing, seems to resonate with this! And a similar concept arises from the Upanishads of ancient India, as well!

In accordance, with Nature 

The pantheistic cosmology of the Stoics is a very logical belief system, in my humble opinion. In fact, many ancient cultures independently developed similar models of the universe. I discussed a few of them in another article of mine, Concept of the cosmic order in ancient religions. Indeed, ranging from Rta in Hinduism to Orlog in the Norse pantheon, from Providentia of the Romans to Ma'at of the Egyptians, we see that this idea often evolves as a natural consequence of intuitive reasoning.

Therefore, I believe you won't accuse me of blasphemy or idiocy, when I admit that I worship the Logos. Stoicism has now become more than a way of life for me, it's my religion, a theology that I chose to follow. And in my humble opinion, the Will of the divine Logos is that, it may one day develop into a religion - providing purpose, meaningfulness and peace of mind, but free from all sorts of blind superstitions, shameless opportunism (by the authorities of religions) and In Agreement with the laws of science. And I don't claim that it is TRUE, I instead believe that such a system of informed beliefs and logical assumptions, may prove to be USEFUL for many of us, that are searching for answers...

NOTE: Obviously, I am not done yet. I'll write a follow-up post explaining my view in further detail. 

Read More »

Learning Lessons from a Tragedy

I should mention in advance that the inspiration for this post came when I was reading Letters from a Stoic by Seneca, Letter LXIII. Here, Seneca councils Lucullus on how to deal with and learn from the recent death of his close friend, Flaccus. 



The most important reason that I cherry picked this topic amongst many others is that because it deeply resonated with my personal familial loss, not too long ago. So forgive me if I come off as a tad passionate in my wordings, as I really know what I’m talking about.

While reading this letter multiple times, I couldn't stop the constant head nodding as I concurred with every golden word .What also struck me was how prudent and insightful the tips from Seneca were. After the completion, I had a whole new less-dreary understanding of death and appreciation of life and people around me. I hope you feel the same way after reading this post

.

So, without further a due, I’ll present five of the most poignant and pivotal lessons one can learn from a personal tragedy:

1). It’s OK to Cry! … For a while:

If  Spock can cry, Why can't ya ?

The modern stoic definition and embodiment will have you believe that a poker-faced, laconic marine who wouldn’t shed a tear at his mother’s funeral and doesn’t crack up under extreme terrorist interrogations. This is pure Bullshit! They couldn’t have it misconstrued or twisted its essence anymore, making Seneca and Marcus turn in their graves (that’s how I feel). According to Seneca, its O.K to cry! in limit.

                  “We can be pardoned for having given away tears so long as the have not run down in excessive quantities and we have checked them for us" 

                                                  - Seneca , letters from a stoic ( Letter LXIII)

So, if you’re a stoic and are struck by an unexpected tragedy, don’t be ashamed or embarrassed if you cry. Why? Because it is a cathartic and a natural emotional release mechanism that regulates your mental stability. It helps you be sane! However, Seneca states that one should not turn it into a weep-a-thon or a sob-a-fest (Tears yes, but there should be no lamentation). 

Where do you draw the line?  First understand that crying is to let you know consciously and accept the tragedy that occurred, it is the buffer time for healthy recuperation. But, when this turns into an ostentatious showdown where we are trying to find a means to parade and proving your loss …to others, that’s when ya know ya gotta stop!

2). Don’t Dwell on it… Be in the Moment:

An unexpected personal tragedy leaves deep mental scars that take time to heal. If you’ve been there you’ll know that, for days on end your mind tends to play the movie of the tragedy, sometimes its self-induced to trigger self loathing and the incessant crying. The mind obsesses over the scenarios, possibilities and alternatives that could have happened, but didn’t and them you blame it on your bad luck for this horrible tragedy.

 This is often made worse by the morose people around us, who come to offer their sympathy and add their two cents on how I should be strong and keep on going. At that time, you’re in such a daze that no words or actions can reach your core.

There are times when your mind starts to recover a bit and becomes present but the environment and people around remind you of tragedy that happened and its back to square one! I can go on and on about this travesty, especially in the Indian perspective, but let me offer the solution now.

Seneca says that if one is really in the moment, it is not possible for him to experience this tragedy constantly: “At any moment something or the other will happen that will turn that long face of yours into a smiling one”. 

 

While this rarely may be the case in most horrible tragedies where one’s mind becomes the worst enemy of recovery, constantly re-playing the movie  and evoking despair. However, I can see some substance in his statement as even during my tragedy there were moments where I was more present than I can ever remember.

I also had some lighter moments with my friends during that time, although it’s dictated by the society to be and act in a certain way during a tragedy, you don’t have to follow the norms as they are not there for your well-being. I took a long time to get my shit together, still a work in progress, but I can solemnly vouch for one thing, that the remote control of the tragedy is on your hands. So if you want to feel down, you can recall those memories and begin crying rivers or you can pipe down and continue with your life.

3). Ya know you like it!:

This point is a little too twisted and controversial to be expounded, but I’ll go ahead anyways.

We as humans, only do things we like to do. But what about grieving and lamenting? Yes...That too! The act of self-loathing, crying and grieving beyond certain limits gives us a warm sadistic pleasure; it makes us feel cozily-secure, gives us the much craved attention and care from other humans and evokes self-pity that we like to wallow in. This behavior is deep-rooted in human psyche since infancy and something we all are guilty of indulging in.

Seneca’s teacher Attalus said that Recalling those who are gone are pleasant, but not with a touch of sourness. Who would deny that acidic things with harshness also stimulate our palate? During the funeral of a close family member, I noticed to my astonishment some of the rawest and most pretentious human behavior. 

The distant relatives and people who scarcely knew the deceased entered the room wailing the loudest and moving dramatically appearing as if shaken by his death and when I saw them a few minutes later, they were busy gossiping amongst each other, seeing me they put their sad face On! So much for double standards.

They didn’t care about the death at all, but acted in a way that their heart had been ripped from their chest! I was enraged and flabbergasted to see the hypocrisy of the society that came to the funeral; people were talking on their mobiles in front of the corpse and couldn’t wait for the food to be served so they can fill their stomachs and leave the house. I was too traumatized by the tragedy to muster energy expose their façade.

4). Shit Happens! :

The one thing that has been true all along, that we never know what, how or when a tragedy will befall upon us. We can expect tragedy anytime, anyway and anyhow. So, the best strategy is to be prepared for it by accepting that we do not have control over it. 

The other thing that we can do is be grateful to our lucky stars for the things, the people and the ‘luck’ we do have, as it can clearly could have been much worse. So, after knowing and accepting these two things we should make the most of the time we have left and since we don’t even know that for sure, the only safe bet is this moment, the NOW! Make the most of NOW.

Seneca says “Let us make more friends, since no one can tell how long we shall have this opportunity”. Right on, my man! He says further: “You have buried the someone you loved, Now look for someone else to love, as it is better to make good on the loss of a friend than crying over it!”

In my opinion, a major thing that got me over my tragedy was the fact that I had other people to love and support me. I treasure them every day and am grateful for the life I am blessed with. Until my last breath one should feel lucky to have been born as a human and the miracles that he has gone through to exist.

“So let us bear in mind that those we are fond of are just as liable to death as we are ourselves, whatever can happened at any time can happen today”

Hence, when that day comes for us or our beloved to move on, instead of moping and whining selfishly about how we are hurt by it, treasure the times and the lessons you had learnt from him while being grateful for the miraculous life you have lived thus far.

5). What don’t kill ya, Makes ya Stronger:

There is some substance behind this clichéd Nietzche quote, which says that tragedies and 
obstacles is what, toughens up a man’s resolve to continue on his quest of life. Tragedies are without a doubt horrible and painful to endure, but they can also be used to propel one towards achieving his goals/objectives with a renewed vigor and steely resilience. 

This is often called ‘Resistance’ something that offers hinders or impedes our growth, but rising above it will provide greater power (see: bodybuilding). The way to do it is: Perception. Perception is believing that this tragedy will make you grow as a person and make you tougher, and soon enough this will be your reality. Believing otherwise shall give congruent results.

Seneca teaches: Who will ever be granted the strength of character, unless he be a man already lifted far out of fortune’s reach? ….. Damn Straight, Senny Boy!

So, in conclusion tragedies are devastating for sure, but you still have massive control whether to treat it as a stumbling block or a stepping stone.

Peace.Presence.Joy.

Read More »

Poll Results for March, 2015

Our very first poll, on who is your favourite Stoic philosopher, has been well received, with 9 total votes. While the number may seem overwhelmingly small (and 1 vote was mine), it's a good start nonetheless, since the entire project is a month old. Here it is, without further ado, for archiving purposes.

Poll: Who is your favourite Stoic philosopher?

• Zeno - 0 votes (0%)
• Chrysippus - 0 votes (0%)
• Seneca - 2 votes (22%)
• Epictetus - 5 votes (55%)
• Marcus Aurelius - 2 votes (22%) 

And evidently, the winner is Epictetus! It is also clear, that Roman Stoicism, or The Late Stoa, is way more popular than The Early Stoa. Both periods have their merits, of course. 

Read More »

FAQs: a few words on The Stoic Code (project update)

Last month, I started the task of building this project from scratch, with the help of my friend and fellow Indian Stoic, Mr. Hrim Shah. And indeed, it's a pleasure to see that the project has finally achieved a bit of success, no matter how small that may be. Besides, it's no small matter for us, since we both kept our expectations low.

Let's be honest, although Stoicism is among the most elegant philosophical systems in the world (and the best that I know of), it still remains alien to more than 90% of today's population. Most of them remain blissfully ignorant, while others view it in a suspicious way, thanks to the misinterpretation of the word Stoic (someone who represses his/her emotions, as per many modern dictionaries).

We expected other practitioners of Stoicism, in India, to join the cause. Why? Because when Hrim and I framed the project, it was so as members of a WhatsApp group, created by some Indian members of Newstoa. It was as members of the same group, that Hrim and I met, and decided to spearhead the thrust that was previously Newstoa India, and now The Stoic Code.

Why rename the site? 

When we started the project in early March, we initially chose the name Newstoa India, but later it was decided that such a new would lead to confusion among the masses. After all, there's already the Newstoa.com, Erik Wiegardt's fascinating platform that serves as a meeting ground for Stoics from across the globe. That's why, we wanted a name for our project, that would complement our endeavour with its originality.

Besides, we mistakenly confined ourselves, by using 'India' in our name. Stoicism advocates cosmopolitanism, and as citizens of the cosmos built by the Logos, it is our duty to prevent limiting constraints such as political, religious, linguistic, cultural or geographical differences from actually diving the followers of Stoicism. That's why, the blog belongs to the global audience, and not just to the Indians alone.

The name The Stoic Code is unique, to my knowledge, and it also symbolizes what we are trying our best to do here, each in our own way. We are trying to amass the eternally evolving Stoic understanding of the cosmos, and categorize that knowledge properly, to ensure that we all, as practitioners of Stoicism, benefit from the shared, collective knowledge of the community.

Is it a commercial venture? If not, why do this? 

No, The Stoic Code is not a commercial venture. We didn't invest any amount (and this is a free domain, as you can see), and we plan to make no financial gains from the project. There are no hidden ads or commercial agendas anywhere, and we plan to keep it thus. What we're investing here, is our time and effort. In return, the shared repository of knowledge, revelations, thoughts and ideas on Stoicism, remains accessible to us.

Knowledge increases when we spend it.

Our reasons for contributing to The Stoic Code are as follows:

Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam
(the world is my family)

The art of Prosokhe 

By being active in the endeavour, we're active helping each other nourish and sustain the flame of reason, the element of Logos, within each of us.

Getting to know each other

We're geographically scattered. Stoicism is not like Hinduism or Christianity, with millions of followers everywhere. But in this age of digital communication, the blog provides us a shared platform for expressing ourselves. Of course we can use instant messaging or emails, but by sharing our views, opinions and Stoic conclusions, I believe we can get even closer.

Building a knowledgebase 

My friend and fellow Stoic Hrim often tells me, that we should contribute to Stoicism ourselves. Even as students of the philosophy, each of us can contribute something unique to it. The words of Seneca, Epictetus, Zeno, Chrysippus, Aurelius etc continue to guide us, but the true spirit of Stoicism lies in its methodology - we all can generate knowledge, no matter how small or simple that is.

In addition, people new to Stoicism will also be able to find information on Stoicism, Stoic writings and discussions etc to help them get more familiarized with the philosophy.

Writing a shared magazine for the Stoics 

Turning a blog into a magazine is easy, there are RSS feeds for that. Through services such as Feedly, Google Play Newsstand etc, the blog can be read as a continuous, dynamic magazine. Reading Stoic content is an exercise in Stoicism itself, or so I believe. Much like the Newstoa Magazine, but it can be updated more often.

Are more members invited to join? 

Yes, very warmly. If you're interested, please do consider contacting either of us, and we'll be glad to add you to the blog as an author/admin, as per your choice (we both are admins, at present). Regular posting isn't mandatory, there's no compulsion and you can do it at your leisure (and pleasure).

Posts can be anything, as long as it's at least remotely related to Stoicism. You can share stories of your life as a practising Stoic, resources on Stoicism, articles etc.

But I can always create my own blog! 

Yes, of course. But what I've discovered in my years of blogging solo (my main blog is http://techtravelandtalks.blogspot.in), that it gets boring too quickly. Besides, if one user maintains a blog, he/she will have to do everything - write articles, propagate the content, do site maintenance, brainstorm on adding new features and making the site more interesting. But by sharing tasks between us, we can specialize, and accelerate the project.

So, if you feel like it, please consider joining The Stoic Code, as a member. Alternatively, you can also read existing content, share your views by commenting, spread the word, etc.

Also, there's no leader here. I intend to assume no such title, and everything about the project may be freely discussed among the members. Currently we do that by emailing, but at present there's just the two of us. So, we may create a WhatsApp group or mailing list for the task of deciding matter between us, if the number of authors/admins rises further.

But there are other sites/blogs/groups already! 

Yes, but we believe, the purpose of this project is a bit different. Most sites on Stoicism aim to provide an introduction to the philosophy, and are helpful, thus. Groups on Facebook, and Google+ communities on Stoicism, are good for quick discussions between the existing Stoics. Personal blogs tell us about individual realizations of the practising Stoics.

We are the Stoics, Cosmopolitans!
We're citizens of the Cosmos. 

But this project aims to build a shared platform for freestyle discussions on Stoicism. That's more freedom and flexibility, in my opinion. Besides, we don't intend to compete with any other site, blog, group etc. Instead, we wish to complement them. If you maintain your own resource on Stoicism, be it a weblog, journal, Facebook/Google+ group or page, you're more than welcome to share the word here, and it won't be removed. We wish to witness the rise of Stoicism, and intellectually benefit from it.

There's Newstoa, of course, but the Newstoa magazine is released only once a month. That's why we started this project, so that we can post and read whenever we feel like it.

What's there in the project? And why don't you just call it a group blog? 

This blog is the primary area of interaction for us, but there are a few other front-ends, such as a collectively maintained Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/thestoiccode), a G+ page (https://plus.google.com/110336620387720828273) and an IRC channel (for live discussions).

The reason I don't call it a group blog alone, is that, I intend to make it bigger than that. How successfully we do that, depends on the Will of the Logos, and we hope to live in according with That.

Final words 

Stoicism has immensely benefited me, and I believe that's just the beginning. It is an immaculate philosophy, an astoundingly simple (yet effective) way of life, and an excellent resource for happier living. I was born a Hindu Brahmin, in a deeply religious family, but like most other analytical folks, I couldn't stay contended with what was on the table. So, I explored more, and finally discovered Stoicism. Now, it's like a religion to me, and I intend to be a witness to its meteoric rise and recognition.

May our endeavour be in accordance with the Logos.

Read More »