Opening the gate to Normal Land

Lately I have been soaked in this thought about what does it really mean when we say that something is 'normal'. Are people really trying to imply this is how it should be? Why is it so rewarding to be normal for some people? Is this like an ultimate ride into conformity land!

I grew up with this idea that if I think someone is weird then there must be some other person who definitely finds me weird. There is still no doubt in my mind about it. It sounds so obvious to me that well, here is this person I really don't enjoy being with because I find that person weird so how weird would I be to someone else? There is no context in my head to this thought because I cannot possibly predict what feature or bug in me is going to make me feel weird to someone, so I just never think about it. But in the same way that I feel liberated by this idea, I have seen that some people find it extraordinarily difficult to deal with the fact that anyone can find them weird. Then begins an exercise into finding reflections off other people & trying to look good in their mirrors of opinion. This sucks. I find this sort of an exercise extremely distracting & can't possibly imagine doing it myself.

But some people do. I don't necessarily think that they are abnormal or weird, but they have a different point of view which I don't or I won't share. They believe in fitting in entirely. But for anyone who has exercised even a bit in their life can tell us that there is a limit to which we can stretch our bodies, but there is no such tangible limit to stretching our minds. This puts us at a complete loss, because once we are convinced by some idea we just kind of get sucked into it. We start slipping into that thought pool & can only get out of it if we have the adequate will power to face the limits of that thought.

So being normal, or watching people scorn other people for being abnormal or weird is perfectly acceptable for most of us, because we have already been sucked into this quicksand of normality addiction. There is different normal for different people, so how could we possibly imagine what a general idea of normality is? For a serial killer who has no moral burden over his actions against his victims, killing can be a perfectly normal state of mind. Maybe that's why TV series like Dexter are so successful, because it puts us into a totally different realm of a concept we (non-serial killers) can so easily believe to be absurd.

So this whole normal business leads to a big bunch of dissatisfaction amongst the lots of us. I have seen so many people get consumed by being accepted that they totally forget about who they really are. I was like that once, trying to live up to the expectations of other people around me, but somehow the tide reversed in my favor. I could easily detach & forgot all about it as I grew up. Good for me.

Take a hippo for example, because it is a really huge example & it is easy to pay attention to big bulky things than a small pin lying on the floor. If some person tells us that when it rains & there is mud all around, he likes to roll in it & enjoy the feeling. This may not be a perfectly normal activity to expect from a sane person, but from a hippo's point of view - well it will definitely find it cool. It will join that person in rolling in the mud & maybe both of them would have a really great time. Just rolling & getting dirty in the mud slush.

So this whole business of preferential normality, or in english, my normal is different from your normal,  leads us to this really boring conclusion about how cults or groups are formed. People who think something is normal for them & find other people who do it too, will find each other & will come together to share their normality. For them perhaps, if they aren't so open minded, will find other people's normal to be really obnoxious & something to stay away from. The tragedy here is that a lot of people wish to impose their view of normal on a lot of other people. Would a mother obsessed with cleanliness & perhaps having OCD for keeping things clean, force a hippo out of the mud? It will sit on her to begin with, just to protest.

History is filled with such examples of people imposing normality on others, colonisation perhaps, religion definitely, philosophy for sure, political ideology & all those pretentious things people tend to believe when they think they know it all, or worse - they know better.

That just shows perhaps how difficult a political idea like democracy can get, which  can become an ultimate exercise in conformity. What most people believe is good for all, is the law & the rest who don't believe it to be good are, well just the abnormal minority. That's why it must always be fun for politicians who get to steer the majority opinion in their favour by not usually putting up great solutions for society's problems in front of the people, but just a thought which most of the electorate will believe to be in their favour. That's it, & the rest is taken care of on the election day.

So how do we deal with this normal bug? How we as a species deal with something so basic & fundamental to our thought process, & change it into an unpleasant experience of being open? I know it is possible & it makes finalizing judgments rather difficult. It takes a whole lot of time to take a stand for or against something when we are being too open about it. Open may not always translate to making the right / contextually appropriate choices. Only in hindsight can we say if being open was really the right way of doing it & there couldn't have been another equally efficient alternative solution. Being open is like being in a constant state of motion & some people tend to get motion sick.

Because, being open may not be everybody's normal.

A Reluctant Historicist

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." 

I have grown up reading that quote. But what should we learn from history? Should we just learn about what happened in the past or should we learn from the actions that were provoked because of what happened in the past? Everything there is to learn from history gives us a chronological story of when & how the events took place. This can breed in us a misplaced arrogance of probably identifying a pattern or a trend in which history proceeds to become the present. We might get tempted to say, "of course, that was going to happen anyway, what else could happen?" These patterns might very well exist, but each of these patterns is tainted by our own way of looking at it. 

Karl Popper, in Open Society & its Enemies calls this imagination of a historical trend as Historicism. Although this term predates Popper it's a good place to start thinking about history. A historicist looks at the past & starts drawing conclusions based on facts & interpretations to come up with a theory of historical development/evolution. It is akin to irresponsibly use a spreadsheet to drag a trend to eternity. This so called knowledge of the evolution of history seems mystical but at the same time is an important part of the fabric of assumptions of how any society grows. 

For a long time I assumed that the system that we are living in is a good one. I mean, the democratic system, where anyone can do what we want to do under the common context of the law. I still think it's a great system. But perhaps due to lack of any major turbulence in my life or perhaps sheer ignorance about what's happening around 'my' world, I began to believe in its obvious permanence. It seems obvious, only due to a lack of understanding of how it feels to be in any system other than my own experience. Now I begin to question, if this experience was worth anything at all! The ignorance, the assumption of permanence & taking the system's function for granted. One of the major traits of an historicist is to passively assume that the system will remain the way it is & it will have a DNA of its own. All the good & bad things about it will continue to be so (within an assumed historical trend) but with minor modifications as the social context changes with time. So my assumptions about political, social, educational, economical & the capitalist system that it is the way it is & will remain the way it was, were based on nothing but a Thanksgiving turkey like assumption. I believed that I am safe because I was fed & taken care of all year long. Well what will happen when my Thanksgiving day arrives & my theory of this world is roasted in a big fat oven? 

My assumptions about the complex adaptive nature of the universe are also based on a similar mix of arrogance of knowing too much but not knowing the full importance of what I already know. I tend to assume that when things are in a flux, they very well might remain in flux until a trigger brings them back to their so called, Mean Value. But this is one man's stupidity speaking. Imagine a world of people where we each have our own opinions of our systems around us & we each approach them in our own way. Some of us will be allowed & applauded to think on our terms where as the less dominant (popular) ideas will be suppressed. Democracy.

If we see a nation coming together to protest against something as hard to prove & easy to prosecute as corruption, we can observe the anti-historistic attitude in the minds of these people. They seem to assume that they can control their system's fate (which ideally they should be able to, in a democracy) & steer it into a direction of corruption free growth & prosperity. How many of us have honestly visualized the after effects of this, in a country like ours? There are various models to refer in other countries, but what about a model state of affairs for our nation? What will it finally mean to take charge of the course of this nation's future history? Do all the people standing with a candle in their hand & cap on their heads actually understand the economic, political, social impact of their actions when they face the same incentives & threats as the people they wish to prosecute? I don't know the answer.

I have begun to believe that there are two types of historicists. One who truly believes in his version of historical evolution & hopes that the cycle will repeat the way it has in the past. The other type of historicist is a reluctant one, who has to accept that without a movement as viral as the current protest against corruption & without serious resources to protect against personal vendetta from the affected parties - it is nearly impossible to get the system to move one way or another. In short, become a fish big enough so that other fish can't hurt me & my cause. I guess I have become a reluctant historicist, which deeply bothers me since I believe in taking charge of my own life & not succumb to any patterns or trends that I am 'supposed' to follow. That's a weird contradiction to live with, but this time I can't seem to figure which of my assumptions is wrong?

Protecting Values

Why should rich world powers involve themselves in the internal conflicts of the countries with oppressive regimes? Like in Libya.

Two options lie ahead of us (whether of rich or poor-oppressed nations):

1. We can tolerate that other people are being oppressed & they should rise up against their own evils.
2. Another approach is that we should intervene and get rid of the oppression & help those people stand up on their own feet, sooner.

What are the pros & cons of such an approach?

To intervene or not intervene?

The foremost reason is "trade" or "economic relations" between different regions of the world. When it was easy to get away with not moving around & live within self sustainable means, there was no incentive to reach out to see what the world had to offer. Even if there was an incentive as we can see in hindsight, it wasn't always economically viable. Instead local economics dominated over the minds of the locals. Since there was no conception of what goods/resources the world can offer, there wasn't any desire to explore the possibility. Fortunately not all people thought this way & some of them explored (mostly for the search of treasure to loot or countries to colonize) but nevertheless ventured out on funded expeditions. Once the goods from the new lands were brought back, there was an immediate comparison between its value with locally available goods. This might have created a dichotomy of value, what can we make better than them & what can they make better than us?

Stealing ideas & designs was probably as old as then. But it doesn't change the economic basis of trade. We buy what we think is more valuable than the money we spend on it. If we believe that someone in a far away land can make something better than us & it can be economically transported with the least possible risk - we can hope to buy it at a reasonable price. This is the basis of international trade or at least the version that the WTO wants to believe.

With massive explosion in distribution networks, it is far more prudent to find such economic value in a lot more nations than our own / our neighbors. So if a supply chain is disrupted on account of internal conflict in some part of the world, it automatically affects the lifestyle & economics of the nations that depend on the output of these strife led countries.

But are there rules of protecting such economic interests of the world?

Are there rules of engagement meant for the rich countries, which can be relied upon to engage in such situations?

What should be the priorities of the intervening nations - to protect their own interests or the interests of those oppressed?

Can being selfish truly absolve the world's conflicts & create a better environment for trade?

So intervention even if it sounds ridiculous in the newspapers & borderline meddlesome - does it not ensure that markets remain free & their access remains equitable?

I think international diplomatic relations are much more necessary to protect the smooth functioning of the markets as much as they are important for usurping oppressive regimes. But it will be exceptionally naive to assume that all the intervening parties will have the best intentions in mind. All of them, under the guise of freeing markets can have ulterior motives to control or dominate the region for themselves.

Will this lead to controlled colonization of the nations under strife?

Should a super power be trusted with the authority to benevolently return the state to the rightful rulers after the conflict is over?

This was exactly the reason why most nations came under the oppressive regimes in the first place. Laying tremendous trust into the hands of someone powerful, in order to run the state as they please, until the state stabilizes. Besides, the rulers never left. Remember Caesar?

The power, it seems, to turn the wheels of global trade & commerce will always lie in the hands of the powerful. As Muammar Gaddafi quoted in one of his speeches, 'The Strong will always rule".

Is power of the people stronger than one regime?

Is the wit of the people greater than one regime?

Is camaraderie a reliable force to sustain trade?

Finally, why does it always end up being a question about sustainable trade? Don't we have anything better to do?

There are examples of good governance leading to tremendous improvement in the standards of living of people. Singapore is an example that comes to mind. There are contradictions in the way the world works & they more or less evolve from they way people think about their values. The most ancient dichotomy lies between the values of the West vs the East. Western nations believe that free trade is the way ahead & they have evolved their political systems surrounding the assumptions arising out of it. Since they have been more prosperous with their approach, despite the price paid in history - this model of global capitalism seemed very juicy not to adopt. If these values spread, it will not only benefit the West, but also benefit the nations who adopt them. This has also been demonstrated by India, China, Brazil, & so on. So there lies an economic incentive in spreading your values & protecting your economic interests.

The East on the other hand has perhaps evolved its idea of capitalism from a more socialistic or a communist point of view.

But, as your interests more & more depend on how other people lead their lives, it becomes necessary to set the path straight once in a while by intervening & suppressing the volatility in policy, The Economist has a brilliant argument, which seems logically correct so far - that in order to be able to promote its model of economic well being, it has to intervene & the moment it sacrifices its values by not intervening, the economic model will blow up in its face.

As for why don't we have anything better to do than just trade?

Well, we weren't always like this. In Matt Ridley's book, The Rational Optimist - he cites that 'Transacting is not a natural phenomenon'. Humans developed the idea of trading/exchanging at least 100,000 years ago. They seemed to have figured out the logic, that the more you trade the more you prosper. Animals, although show examples of transactions in isolation it is nothing compared to the way we humans have evolved. If trading was such a dominant revelation in human thought, then it is necessary to ask, why did the industrial revolution not happen sooner?

Now comes the biological kicker - human tendency, like other animals is to isolate & create special factions which share amongst themselves but not with outsiders. This has hugely restricted new ideas & inculcated group think amongst cultures. Well the obvious advantage of trade, specialization, production & consumption is apparent from our current urban lifestyles. But is it worth protecting? Are these values really so important that we have to try & show others the right path towards them?

What if, there is some hidden, unknown sense of life underlying the values of oppressed state - that the intervening world fails to see?

To answer that I'd like to cite what Ridley cites which more or less sums it up for why protecting markets is sometimes more important that protecting political ideologies -

'Political decisions are by definition monopolistic, disenfranchising and despotically majoritarian; markets are good at supplying minority needs.'

- simply put - if we don't like an outcome of an election, we have to live with it. But if we don't like a hair dresser, we can always look for another one.