24.11.13

Sunday ka Funda

"Whosoever is delighted in solitude is either a wild beast or a god."
— Aristotle



What happens if beast and human come together? When I saw this photograph, even before reading the article, I found immense beauty in it. Beauty, not courage, not adventure. We have seen divers, all dressed up and prepared to face sharks. In an older video, Christina gets real close, and the BBC commentary even talks about the sexual attraction, of mimicking a shark, of the shark being in a trance.

There are other questions that can be raised about interfering with nature, courting danger. And what happens were the shark to turn violent? Who is to blame? Would killing the shark that you have been embracing until now be deemed self-defence? Can it, if we rally extend the argument, be a crime of passion?

The article does not have answers. However, it describes the encounter:

At the 22-second mark, one man swims down and grabs the dorsal fin of the lemon shark. After riding it for several seconds, he does something truly shocking. He swings around to the bottom of the shark, gives it a bear hug and hangs on belly to belly. His head is precariously located just below the shark's mouth and he hangs on for several seconds before finally letting it go.


Before you watch this, let me ask Aristotle: Is it solitude when man and beast come together in what could be a spiritual (and a broad sense godly) experience?


20 comments:

  1. "Whosoever is delighted in solitude is either a wild beast or a god." -Aristotle


    FV, Of course, some gods can be both beasts and gods (for example, Narasimha avatar of vishnu) :-) Semantically, an "or" is weaker than an "and", so the above statement also says someone who desires solitude could be a wild beast and a god simultaneously. Having spliced that sematic hair lengthwise with precision, I must say that I am glad that the bad PR sharks got from that stupid Robert Benchley Book and the associated movie "Jaws" is now being reversed. Sharks find fish meat more delectable than human meat and sharks that attack humans are akin to rogue elephants that do the same. Maybe the day will come when a less sharkist world will find it acceptable to portray mermaids in shark outfits.

    Sharkhugger in training.
    Al

    ReplyDelete
  2. FV, correction...it was Peter Benchley who wrote "Jaws" and Robert Shaw that acted in the movie. The two names got smushed together in my head.
    -Al

    ReplyDelete
  3. Al:

    Yes, of course, mythology is full of beast-god figures, just as of human-beast.

    I think Aristotle meant a lack of dependence on others for emotional sustenance, which is why solitude becomes such a desire and a problem.

    Sharks have got a bad name, and I doubt if a mermaid in shark's clothes would get away easily. Don't we know what is happening around us?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I think Aristotle meant a lack of dependence on others for emotional sustenance, which is why solitude becomes such a desire and a problem. "

    FV,not sure too many people desire solitude. Most people think solitude is a terrible, pitiable thing, from what I've seen. Looking for external validation is a common trait in a lot of people, whether it is family or friends or random strangers. Perhaps they can only relate to themselves via other people.


    -Al

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Yes, of course, mythology is full of beast-god figures, just as of human-beast. "

    FV, Yes, was aware of that -- just pointing out that Aristotle's quote makes little sense literally. Even figuratively, it makes assumptions as to what a god is all about.

    -Al

    ReplyDelete
  6. Farzana,

    I take AI's point, guessing to what he refers is an inherent ambiguousity to the conjunction "or" versus the "and". The "or" could indeed serve as an "and," provided, as AI observes, one sees some synonymity in expression between a wild beast and a god; whereas the "and" couples the two regardless, synononymity or no.

    I'm not sure that makes the "or" semantically "weaker," tho' -- more supple, perhaps?  :)

    And then (speaking of ambiguousity) there's what has apparently been translated as Aristotle's "delighted". Presumably the original Greek conveyed the same figurative sense of extraordinary pleasure and not a more literal sort of plunge into darkness?

    Whosoever is delighted in solitude is either a wild beast or a god.

    Of course the emphasis could be on a more (subsequently) Hobbesian "wild". Hobbes, in what some might describe as an apology for monarchy, suggests the king (God or the gods regent on earth) is necessarily outside laws restraining of mere men so that he might wage war. "Wild beast" or "god" then suggests one un-tamed by, un-governed by and, indeed, in-dependent of such strictures restraining of men.

    The question then becomes whether a "dependence on others for emotional sustenance" is one such restraining stricture -- and hence the delight in solitude?.  :)

    Mark

    ReplyDelete

  7. Mark:

    Al is a cynic, not a semanticist, in these matters :-)

    I think I put this to rest in the last line:

    "Is it solitude when man and beast come together in what could be a spiritual (and a broad sense godly) experience?"

    I do agree that "delighted" could have alluded to extraordinary pleasure, but what made you think a plunge into darkness cannot be pleasurable?!

    {"Wild beast" or "god" then suggests one un-tamed by, un-governed by and, indeed, in-dependent of such strictures restraining of men.}

    Hobbes probably was trying to make a political statement and statecraft manageable. Wasn't the divine right of kings similar? At another level, yes both wild beast and god are unrestrained by humans, one because of tangible fear, the other untangible.

    {The question then becomes whether a "dependence on others for emotional sustenance" is one such restraining stricture -- and hence the delight in solitude?.  :) }

    Now, now...and here I thought I was the conspiracy theorist. Agree, though. But, then, what happens when there is a dependency on solitude?

    ReplyDelete

  8. Al: 

    Everybody makes assumptions as to what god is all about. God's existence and survival depends upon these. 

    People do indeed desire solitude — be it hermits or those who feel they do not quite fit into society, or a dislocation within. Besides these, there are those who have these moments. 

    If by looking for validation you mean the emotional dependence I referred to, then I certainly do not see them as the same. Emotions do not exist in a vacuum, but they seek reciprocity. Different. 

    PS: Why are both of you hauling me up for what Aristotle said?!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Farzana:

    Indeed. There is (as to the prospect that a plunge into darkness can be pleasurable) the suggestion that ignorance is bliss. There's also the caveat not to look a gift horse in the mouth. Likely there are more such aphorisms, but these are just off the top of my head.

    >>. . . what happens when there is a dependency on solitude?<<.

    Believe it or not, my first thought was of Dante's Divina Comedia and a certain personage striking "The Thinker's" pose at the lowest circle of Hell.  :)

    >>PS: Why are both of you hauling me up for what Aristotle said?!<<

    Lurkers of the world unite!  :)

    Seriously, I found your juxtaposition of Aristotle and the swimmer attached to the shark quite interesting and quite evocative of what appears an enduring aspect of human nature: It seems for some it's not enough to admire from afar. They then have to touch, and then . . .

    Seems almost Biblical.  :)

    M.

    ReplyDelete
  10. mstaab: "The question then becomes whether a "dependence on others for emotional sustenance" is one such restraining stricture -- and hence the delight in solitude?. :)"

    Mark, very nicely stated -- dependence on others is the norm and it comes with the price of having to abide by rules of interaction that exist even if unstated. This is usually a good bargain for most people as social interdependence can be beneficial for most people who do not have solitude as an option (given family ties etc.). Should add that I learnt a few new things in the exchange between you and FV re: hobbes and that person in deep thought in Dante's lowest circle of hell.

    FV:"Al is a cynic, not a semanticist, in these matters"

    Hey now, FV. That's not completely true -- cynicism is just a hobby :-) I am a doe-eyed optimist most weekends.

    mstaab:"Lurkers of the world unite! :)"

    hear hear!!

    -Al

    ReplyDelete
  11. AL,

    Actually, thinking about it, Farzana may well have put it to rest with her rhetorical query directed at Aristotle, "Is it solitude when man and beast come together in what could be a spiritual (and a broad sense godly) experience?" Coincidentally, I've recently had occasion to mull over Stevenson's, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (don't ask). Alleged to have been inspired by a dream, Stevenson explores in his novelette precisely what Farzana may have been alluding to. To Mr. Hyde's delight, Dr. Jekyll (an early composite of the medical researcher) seeks for and discovers a means by which to *separate* from one another the dual ("good" versus "evil") aspects informing the character of men . . .

    For 19th century Victorians, apparently, it wasn't a matter of *when* man and beast come together -- they already were.

    >>Should add that I learnt a few new things . . .<<

    Me too.  :)

    M.

    ReplyDelete
  12. mstaab:" To Mr. Hyde's delight, Dr. Jekyll (an early composite of the medical researcher) seeks for and discovers a means by which to *separate* from one another the dual ("good" versus "evil") aspects informing the character of men . . ."

    Mark, but then why only two sides to a person, "good and evil", why not, "good, apathetic, evil, and smug" for example? People seem to be different things at different times moulded by what's around them -- a helpful "good" person can easily transmogrify into a vicious jerk under the right laboratory conditions with the right catalyst. The character of man in general is quite arbitrary -- delusional people who believe in one imaginary overpowering entity get to call themselves "good" because they go around making motions of helping people in the name of their favorite delusion. Is such a person "good" or just "mildly insane exhibiting positive characteristics"...we all know such people are capable to bringin out the Dr. Hyde in them quite easily given the right triggers (i.e., paranoia and feeling persecuted and/or disrespected). But then, it is similar delusions that allow people to say positive things like, so maybe it is just another case of us imposing patterns on an orderless chaotic reality just to help us deal with a complex reality:

    "Seems every where I go
    I see the same face, I feel the same flow.
    With every one I meet and every hand I shake,
    I see myself in every man, trying my best to get to know because everything's at stake."

    ReplyDelete
  13. Al,

    >>but then why only two . . .<<

    Why, indeed. Something -- anything -- can and indeed has been seen in a "positive" light one minute and then in a "negative" light the next. Really, the only consistency or pattern is that binarism (zeros and ones, if you will), however valued. And certainly valuations may change, given, as you say, "the right laboratory conditions" (aka "context").

    Of course, with my mention of Jekyll and Hyde, I was only following along with one possible read on Aristotle's, "Whosoever is delighted in solitude is either a wild beast or a god" ("wild beast," perhaps, an expression for disorderliness; "god," the superlative of order?). According to Stevenson, Jekyll was pained by what he saw as the commingling of the two (and took steps to remedy the situation); whereas Farzana, apparently -- and where she asks, "Is it solitude when man and beast come together in what could be a spiritual (and a broad sense godly) experience?" -- would seem not nearly so pained.  :)

    >>...we all know such people are capable to bringin out the Dr. Hyde in them quite easily given the right triggers<<

    Ah, but that's when you spring Mr. Jekyll on them.  :)

    M.

    Ps. Enjoyed your(?) verse. Seemed curiously apropos.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Ah, but that's when you spring Mr. Jekyll on them. :)"

    Hi Mark, one would think so but asyou surely know, strategy unfortunately only works some of the time. Some folks are more Hyde than Jekyll all the time...they need the anti-Hyde potion.

    "Ps. Enjoyed your(?) verse. Seemed curiously apropos."

    Thanks, Not my verse..forgot to attribute the quote. This is "Tribe" by Queensryche.

    http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/queensryche/tribe.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. Al:

    As I read the verse you quote "I see myself in every man", I think about Jesus. I can see redemption here, and it is not even the weekend :-)

    More seriously, if we take good-evil outside the moral paradigm, then what is good or evil also depends on who is perceived as good or evil. The latter drives the former. 

    Glad that we are all learning a few things here. Time for that School for Scandal. Am I being mildly "delusional"?! 

    PS: I may not post often in reply, but I'm watching Mark and you closely.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mark:

    {There is (as to the prospect that a plunge into darkness can be pleasurable) the suggestion that ignorance is bliss. There's also the caveat not to look a gift horse in the mouth. Likely there are more such aphorisms, but these are just off the top of my head.}

    I was being more metaphysical here. Koestler, Camus were top off my head. And then the more 'basic' sense of losing oneself!

    {>>. . . what happens when there is a dependency on solitude?<<.

    Believe it or not, my first thought was of Dante's Divina Comedia and a certain personage striking "The Thinker's" pose at the lowest circle of Hell.  :) }

    Tee-hee! 

    {It seems for some it's not enough to admire from afar. They then have to touch, and then . . .

    Seems almost Biblical.  :) }

    "And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?" (Revelation 13:4)

    Incidentally, when you mention Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde, I had gone back to Cain and Abel. 

    I told ya there is a Catholic inside me waiting to come out...

    ReplyDelete
  17. "As I read the verse you quote "I see myself in every man", I think about Jesus. I can see redemption here, and it is not even the weekend :-)"

    FV, yes, does sound familiar now that you mention it. Since I possess the religious sensibilities of a rebellious washing machine, let me clarify that this makes sense in the general sense of empathy being at the root of humans treating each other well. The problem usually is that humans only exhibit empathy for others in their tribe, as can be seen on a daily basis around us. A "pious and religious, god fearing" person will usually feel empathy only for other people belong to his or her "tribe", dictated by religion in this case, but all sorts of things, including video game loving can result in formation of tribes.

    "More seriously, if we take good-evil outside the moral paradigm, then what is good or evil also depends on who is perceived as good or evil. The latter drives the former. "

    I was actually trying to highlight that good/evil is a false dichotomy, since apathy is also a possibility and belongs to the same class as good and evil. Of course, religious discourse usually pretends that there is only good and evil, as a basis for more simplistic analysis of human nature.

    "Glad that we are all learning a few things here. Time for that School for Scandal. Am I being mildly "delusional"?! "

    :-) aren't we all "delusional" in our own ways? If you need a field agent for this School for Scandal, you don't need to look any further. Please expect my resume in your inbox.

    "I''m watching Mark and you closely."

    Thanks for the warning...I'll be on my best behavior and promise to chew with my mouth closed, though I can't speak for Mark's unruly and outrageous behavior ;-) (just kidding)

    ReplyDelete
  18. (Scand) Al:

    You actually rechristened yourself to be a part of the 'school'. Now this is empathy. People do form special interest groups, not to speak of those who come together only on the basis of calling others "sickular" :)

    {I was actually trying to highlight that good/evil is a false dichotomy, since apathy is also a possibility and belongs to the same class as good and evil.}

    And I am saying that a quality cannot be removed from the individual, as much as good. evil, apathy are 'values', a person's input can alter the dynamics.

    PS: By close watch, I wasn't doing a matron act. Was merely saying that I am not ignoring the debate. But, now that you have given chew for thought, I will walk down the dorm to check if all is well!

    ReplyDelete
  19. FV:"By close watch, I wasn't doing a matron act. Was merely saying that I am not ignoring the debate."

    FV, But of course, was just pulling your metaphorical leg. :) silly attempt at a joke.
    -Al

    PS: I think a "tribe" is a bit more than just an interest group -- people are willing to fight/kill/die for it....and I added video gamers well, because some of them are a bit like that...or maybe it was just my luck meeting the dorks that I did.

    ReplyDelete
  20. FV "And I am saying that a quality cannot be removed from the individual, as much as good. evil, apathy are 'values', a person's input can alter the dynamics."

    FV, Most times the person's input is just a reaction to circumstances -- follower of religion X may react violently against others around him just because something happened to some one or someones belonging to religion X in Mars, and yet feel schadenfreude when same circumstances happen to someone in religion Y in his neighbourhood. But agree with your larger points that "good, evil, etc." are just judgements on manifestations of reactions/actions of individuals in a given context.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.