Random Thoughts, Reflections, and Musings

So much has been on my mind lately and paying tribute to just one idea did not seem satisfying today, so here’s a post with different topics, no rhyme or reason.

-The situation in the Ukraine is nothing short of tragic. Putin has ordered the cruel destruction of lives, buildings, cities, culture, and history. This is something personally heartbreaking to me, as I have a close immigrant friend is from Mariupol. She enlightened me on the history of the area. What we don’t learn in America is how complex Ukrainian-Russian relations have been, historically. Western Ukraine is where more of the ethnic Ukrainians and Ukrainian speakers reside. Eastern Ukraine is heavily ethnically Russian. Things had been relatively peaceful (except for the Chernobyl disaster) until the rise of nationalism in the 90s. 

            Putin is attacking his own people, destroying a country with whom it is vital to have good relations, as it provides necessary access to the Black Sea and has produced oil and gas. Despite this, there is still much poverty in the Ukraine, and now the war is adding to economic destruction (while people are still living through a pandemic). Even the mere act of sheltering together from bomb attacks is perilous, as it involves people coming together in a closed, airtight, small space–exactly what must be avoided during Covid. Only 35% of Ukrainians have been fully vaccinated. Many feel Putin should be tried for war crimes and sentenced to prison for life. Unfortunately, doing this may be quite difficult. We can only hope that international pressure will end the war, and that wealthier countries will provide humanitarian aid and assistance to this war-torn country that is suffering.

-The process of revision in fiction is endlessly complex and surprising. In revising my novel, I expected there to be much material cut, believing that brevity was a big part of it. This is true. However, sometimes revising long work requires adding new material and writing new scenes. Ironically, this can make the piece more “efficient”: that is, putting in some key scenes early on can help cut material later.

-Plausibility and motivation are two important concepts that we do not learn much about in the craft of writing. Literary fiction place is a high emphasis on character and narrative voice. But some important questions we need to ask ourselves are “Is there clear cause-and-effect?” “Would this outcome really happen from that character’s/those characters’ actions before?” “How can I make what happens more believable, how do I build up to this?” Perhaps this is such a hard concept to teach because it is quite slippery and vague: cause-and-effect are so particular to each piece of writing, each context. But an analysis of how a writer got from point A to point B can be very helpful. The key reason I am not a fan of Alice Munro’s writing (yes, I am commiting lèse-majesté here) is because I do not find her causes and effects very clear; there are odd jumps and rapid shifts that leave the reader in the dark.

            This reflection is the result of trying to strengthen one character in my novel so that he does not seem two dimensional or just motivating factor for the protagonist, but someone who has real drives of his own that lead to the immoral things he ends up doing.

-Don’t underestimate the importance of joy. We will NEVER create a better world without adding joy to it. The fundamental principle of activism and world-saving is for people to become happier in whatever form that takes: more justice, less racism, improved economic situations, better conditions for animals and flora and living beings. Very often, activists fail to realize that the people they wish to help would want to be joyous, not an angry bluestocking or militant radical who is obsessed with the Principle. It is a rather Buddhist way of looking at things that if we want to relieve suffering in the world, a big part of that is not to bring more suffering and negative energy into it. 

            Many people mistake joy for a lack of empathy and sensitivity to others’ suffering. These things are not mutually exclusive. One can be cheerful and joyous and bring that positivity into life while still taking action to help others and being deeply empathetic. HH The Dalai Lama has said, “The purpose of life is to strive for happiness.” This from a man who lost his country, whose people have been killed and persecuted and been forced to be refugees, but who chose to spread compassion, joy, and wisdom all over the world.

-What makes your heart sing? Is it romantic love? A beautiful piece of music? Your bond with an unconditionally loving animal? A passion for baking? The adrenaline rush while playing a sport? It’s so important to reconnect with that part of ourselves when we have been suffering through pandemic for two years.

Wishing my readers love and peace and joy.

Science and Unreason: Richard Dawkins

This week, I had the opportunity to see renowned British scientist Richard Dawkins speak as part of his new book tour (his book is aimed at children and teens, and is quite creative and appealing). Dawkins is one of the most prominent thinkers in 20th-21 first century biology and natural sciences, and certainly, his contribution is indeed remarkable. But Dawkins is notoriously pro-science and anti-religion, to which I say—-why the schism? I myself am the daughter of a Hindu scientist, and am a very serious spiritual practitioner with a background in biological anthropology (though my degree was in Anthropology: Social Sciences). Why does he overlook the religious traditions that are pro-science, such as Buddhism?

Perhaps one of the most pro-science, high profile individuals in the world today is HH Dalai Lama, the great leader of (the Yellow Hat branch of)Tibetan Buddhism. He himself has said that, “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.” His Holiness has done much to assist with the field of neuroscience and the scientific study of the brain and mind; one need only do a Google search with the words “Dalai Lama” and “science” to see the plethora of articles on the interconnectedness of Buddhism and science. The basis of Buddhism is impermanence and change, the evolution of thought, and seeing what is—-all concepts that relates well to the fundamentals of modern scientific thinking and scientific methodology.

Dawkins fails to clarify that “religion” as he uses the word really refers to “Judeo-Christian” religion as well as more basic or fundamentalist types of ideas from any world religion. His thought processes reveal a narrow-mindedness that is a common process in any system of thought or philosophy or religion that bills itself as the ONLY way of thinking without any room for input from the opposite side, a dogmatism that one can see in fundamentalist Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, politics, or any culture. It is rather ironic that Dawkins himself is rather caught up in a rather emotional, dogmatic campaign to promote his brand of scientific rationality as the only answer.

Also frustrating about Dawkins is his mission to eliminate non-scientific explanations of natural phenomena. It seems a bit like the schoolyard child with the pin trying to pop your balloon. There is nothing wrong about myths or non-scientific explanations to explain the wonders of nature; they simply need to be contextualized as such, and not taught as- and confused with scientific truth. And vice versa: scientific truth is (if we look at it very, very simplistically), a method-tested, results-repeatable, quantitative, analytical, logical explanation for the wonders of nature. It is a tool which has allowed us to manipulate the world to a degree deemed impossible for centuries if not millennia. It has allowed us to make exponential progress (and, if we look at the state of the environment, regress) and achieve advances in technology that have changed the course of human history in a very short time. Science and myth/religion/storytelling are perhaps two sides of the same coin, quantitative and qualitative explanations for life.

No, we cannot let the religious right prevent us from teaching evolution in schools. Yes, our politicians are generally very misinformed and fearful of science and scientific rationality. Yes, faith often gets in the way of rationality. But we cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater and completely dismiss religion as though it is all irrational, emotional, extremist poppycock. And for those of us not from the Judeo-Christian tradition, we cannot continue to allow the faith vs. rationality schism to persist.