‘Foucault’s Pendulum’ Tuesday, Jul 10 2007 

History and Literature and Philosophy and Religion tavaishnav 9:54 am

This engrossing novel by Italian writer, historian, and philosopher Umberto Eco has been described as the “thinking man’s ‘Da Vinci Code’ “. Having read both, I must say I have felt quite distinct feelings after reading the two novels. Whereas ‘The Da Vinci Code’ read like yet another thriller, albeit with a controversial theme, ‘Foucault’s Pendulum’ reads like a scholarly work. It is almost a reference book on Western occult and secret societies.

Although the novel has liberal doses of occult, religion (mainly Judaism and Christianity), and medieval history, the real theme is psychological. It is about how people believe outlandish conspiracy theories that, though internally consistent, may be entirely imaginary explanations of history or the real world.

Jacopo Belbo, Diotallevi, and Casaubon are three editors at Garamond Press, a small publishing firm in Milan, Italy. Casaubon, the narrator of the story, is a PhD student specializing in the history of the ever-fascinating Knights Templar. In publishing a series on occult literature, satirically named ‘Isis Unveiled’, they review dozens of occult texts written by several authors, whom they term ‘the Diabolicals’, in jest. From one such encounter with an author, they get an idea to formulate a ‘Plan’ of their own, based on all kinds of obscure occult, religious and historical texts that would give a new interpretation of the great secret of the Knights Templar and the few dozen secret societies that have been associated with the Templars over the centuries. They immerse themselves in the task wholeheartedly, initially aware of the purely fictional nature of their work. Their effort is meant to be a satire on the work of the Diabolicals. But, as they actually use all their knowledge and references to create a Plan that is remarkably consistent in all its details, they begin to suspect that it might really be the truth. Belbo and Diotallevi are particularly consumed by this thought, while Casaubon is very proud of their creation.

And then, as the summary on the back cover of the book says, ‘the Plan begins to take over’. Diotallevi dies of cancer, but attributes his death to their attempt to flout Jewish Kabbalistic norms and rewrite history. Certain people with deep occultist interests and beliefs, including some Diabolicals, get wind of the Plan, and they believe in it without question. They come to think that there is a secret which the three editors know, and which, despite their being members of obscure secret societies, they don’t. So they lure Belbo into a trap where he perhaps meets his end. The novel ends with Casaubon being anxious about his own end at the hands of the occultists, although the reader may never be completely certain that there are indeed such conspirators pursuing Casaubon.

(The plot and background of the novel can be found in some detail on this Wikipedia page.)

That is the beauty of the novel. By the end, fiction has got so mixed up with reality that one doesn’t know what to believe. That is the power of conspiracy theories with supposedly deep, earth-shaking secrets.

This is not a fast-paced thriller, and the pace quickens a bit only towards the end. Nearly two-thirds of the novel is a leisurely development of the plot, a few sub-plots, the Plan and the characters. It is full of (at times, exhaustingly full of) arcane religious rituals, secret societies, historical figures that supposedly were involved in the grand plan of the Templars. Indeed, the Plan is so carefully woven by the author that at times, it really seems true.

The book’s structure is also based on Jewish Kabbalah – divided into ten parts that are based on the ten Sefirot in the Kabbalah. In Kabbalah, a seeker gains incremental knowledge of the universe and of God by mastering each succeeding Sefirah. Similarly, with each succeeding part in the novel, the reader knows something more about what is really happening. Each chapter starts with a quote (mostly from really obscure, esoteric texts) that is appropriate to the advancement of the story in that chapter.

And finally, you wonder how one man could conceptualize a creation so complex, and yet so simple. As one of the blurbs on the book says, it is ‘endlessly diverting’. It has thrown up a huge number of leads in terms of further ‘research’ for me – occult, the fascinating world of secret societies, Western theology and history.

 

Knowing Knowledge Wednesday, Oct 11 2006 

Philosophy tavaishnav 10:54 am

The phrase ‘I know this’ (or ‘you know this’, etc.) is a commonly-used, everyday one. But do you really know you know? How do you know you know? What is it, really, that you claim to know?

I love reading and, at times, studying, philosophy. The branch of philosophy that deals with the fundamental questions mentioned above (and many others) is epistemology. For amateurs interested in philosophy, I think this is the branch of philosophy that is most neglected, mostly because it is the most abstract and can get drab and heavy sooner than other topics in philosophy. Epistemology does have applications, however, especially in today’s ‘knowledge economy’. For one, it can serve as the background to and guiding philosophy for a comprehensive enterprise-wide knowledge management strategy.

If you, too, are interested in epistemology, the Wikipedia page, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and this 6 Responses »

 

Who needs religion? Thursday, Sep 21 2006 

Philosophy and Religion tavaishnav 10:38 am

Okay, I admit I am being sensationalist with this sweeping question as the title of this post. What I intend to do is to question the necessity of religion in the social sphere of life and in all the realms of philosophy. Coincidentally, some specialists in related fields have recently published books on the necessity of religion and the concept of God.

The researchers and authors mentioned in the article above explore this question from their own specialist viewpoints, and veer towards atheism as a logical and ‘proper’ choice for mankind, especially these days when the basis of religion as a guardian of morality is shaky.

I have no specialist opinion to offer. I am only seeing the world around me, a world in which religious fervour is only increasing, manifesting itself in extravagant celebrations, intractable disputes, and global terrorism. I do not want to reject religion or the concept of God, but to explore the ‘proper’ role for these in our collective sphere.

From a practical standpoint, it is really appalling that an extraordinary quantity of resources – money, time, energy, human life – are being spent on religion-related matters today. In our country, they mainly take the form of expensive celebrations for miscellaneous Gods, bouts of collective hysteria (like the Ganesh-drinking-milk episode), visitations to famous, but overcrowded temples, riots fomented on religious lines by politicians, and security bandobasts for white-elephant shrines. The world over, religion has become a divisive force, and practically speaking, I think the debate over whether any religion really promotes violence is useless. The reality on the ground is that people are provoked to violence, often suicidal, in the name of religion and religious differences between people. With the world population rising the most in all the poorest places, economic inequality rising, and discontent over standards of living increasing, religion is the last thing the world needs to spend their resources on.

From a philosophical standpoint, religious thinking has either replaced or killed philosophical thought in all of its major branches. Logic ceases to exist where faith in the unknown takes over, and as the article linked above states, most people who are otherwise quite rational in their everyday life, attribute everything inexplicable and less understood to God.

Similarly, while science deals with the empirically verifiable phenomena of the universe, religion has firm hold over metaphysics. Most religions have great metaphysical components, ranging from the simplistic (prospect of virgins in heaven or the fires of hell) to the elaborate and the complex (Upanishadic thought). The beauty is, the positivist method of Karl Popper that defines the characteristics of a scientific theory, stops science from being a know-all, from being confident of having conquered all frontiers of knowledge about the universe we live in. Hence, religion will continue to mock science for its lack of confidence and its methods.

Aesthetics is deluged with immense quantities of artistic expression dedicated to religion, which continues to inspire art. Often, this is everyday art, like the idols of Durga and Ganesh on their respective festivals, or the taaziyaa-s of Moharram, or the trinkets sold outside temples, not the high art of, say, the Sistine Chapel frescoes or the expensive one of, say, the Swaminarayan sect temples.

Religion influences politics, becoming a divisive force in vote-bank democracy, or an exclusivist one in radical theocracy. Notably, the forces of Marxism and communism, which sought to create a more egalitarian society, preferred to dispense with religion in their societies.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, religion or faith is widely considered to be the foundation of morality and ethics. The belief in, and very often, fear of, God is considered to inspire good behaviour, and the judgement of good versus bad.

My personal opinion on the role of religion is as follows: in terms of philosophy, I would like religion not to obstruct logic & rational thinking, and to use metaphysics as a kind of inspiration to the wider humanity, raising questions about the universe and reality that are truly thought-provoking and that inspire people to strive to answer them rationally. Religion is best kept out of politics altogether. One more identity and one more divisive force are just not needed in an age of irresponsible and morally corrupt politicians. If religion inspires ethical behaviour, I would condone it, if not encourage it. Ethics in human interactions is required above all today, when those interactions themselves have increased in number and extent. So I am not too concerned about the means by which ethical behaviour can be secured (except for the use of force, of course). Finally, religion is best restricted to being a personal, private faith, and kept out of social interactions. In our religion-obsessed country, it may almost be blasphemy, but I advocate private prayer to religious congregations. In this respect, the Hindu concept of a private deity (iishTa devataa) is most appropriate. If religion is thus restricted to being something private, its aesthetic expression will also stop being one more cause of divisiveness (a la M. F. Husain’s paintings).

Spirituality is necessary today, far more than religion. And faith in the fellow human is far, far more essential (and equally hard to achieve) than faith in God.