Shut Up Einstein !

“I gleam more through observation and company than through all the books in the world”

It’s time for ramblings and certain concerns that present themselves to me time and time again. Being part of a variety of educational programs forces you to compare and contrast them. Here, I would like to reflect on what happens when you take too many intellectuals and put them together in the same system.

In my opinion that has somehow become the aim of all educational institutions, “Let’s try to get the brightest people in the world and put them together under one roof”. The problem with this is the measurement of intellect and this so-called braininess. In an ideal scenario, the catalyst of genius is supposed to be a stimulating conversation – that’s how our systems are built – smart people shall brainstorm and save the world. It’s no wonder then that superhero movies are now becoming league movies, the days of the standalone hero is almost over.

But what scares me the most is that – and bear with me here because it shall mostly be a polemical argument that derives itself from personal experience and allow it the liberty of generalization to some extent – in the midst of continued exertion of the intelligentsia among these institutes that pride themselves on becoming silos of the same, there appears to be a rapid degeneracy of individual intellect.

Now hear me out, this might seem contrary to all that we have learnt and we know, smarter people = smarter conversations = better development of intellect, but here’s what I think actually happens, now please bear with me, for this is mostly observational and personal experience I rely on here.

The clustering of intellect in our current system of measuring and categorizing the same depends mostly on how good you look on paper. This is mostly an inherent skill of the Indian education system and our inherent ability as Indians to make things look better that it actually is, an ability that has been classically exemplified by the Vajpayee government and the ‘India Shining’ campaign.

There is an inherent similarity in the type of people who cluster around the intellectual band that are then grouped together. This similarity can also be seen in the way they approach their sense of individual security and identity – be it the shared love of pop culture, the quizzing culture, or the inherent commonness to the sources they quote in their day-to-day lives.

In most environments, these commonalities set the intellectuals apart from the rest. They also serve to creating a ‘niche’ class. Now what happens to this ‘niche’ when the sources of information are common to all? There does not exist a niche anymore. In a class of Einsteins who is the original and who is the real one?

Moreover, this state of being so far has created within them the status of being part of the niche and hence, the dependence of identity upon this state by now has become absolute.

But in this new environment when the very conversation starters or arguments or cultural references you might make to either showcase your knowledge or superiority or niche is already common knowledge – is the self-esteem framework secure enough to handle this sense of alienation from this source of identity derivation?

Mostly it is not. What happens as a result, therefore, is that there stems a desire to relocate to the fringes within the fringes and this group now moves to unearth the most obsolete in their race to prove who knows the most.

The definition of a rationalist here has shifted from one who asks questions to one who has the most answers, which is frankly quite scary to me on a personal level. In this race, the dependence on the obsolete seems a better alternative than its lack, ergo enter the argumentative culture. Now I’m not against the exchange of ideas, debate, fist-fight in the name of ideology but what I do abhor, detest and frankly consider a waste of time is personal discourses given in the name of personal life movies. Consider a question that includes within it your personal life history as you would tell your biographer, your list of accomplishments as compiled by your mother, which includes potty training records and your personal philosophy on life that was later adapted into a book that was made into an Oscar-winning movie where you were played by Daniel Day-Lewis and this is part of a question. In our need to prove intellectual superiority random argumentation, escalation of commitment to false, hardly thought out stands, starts coming to the forefront. The need to derive identity, not through opinion but through opining, through supremacy of opinion to discourse-giving is becoming a dangerous trend seen today, especially in institutes of higher learning that focus on the neo-intellect. (Intellect independent of academic achievement).

The loss of diversity in terms of this security derivation is required. There needs to be a healthy balance in the number of sportsmen, not just amateurs but passionate individuals devoted to it, musicians and not pseudo-band wannabes. Yes, I’m sorry having a video on YouTube doesn’t count. There needs to be a commitment to the spirit of inquiry that varies from established channels of intelligent credibility – in this case the definition is independent of academic veracity and achievement.

In the quagmire of the intellect as the new sexy, we have managed to commodify the spirit of inquiry into a half-hearted attempt at gaining trivia that can be used as a bargaining point for societal acceptance as currency for this new-found cult that worships the mind.

But until things change, the next time you hear someone talking about the Higgs Boson and its implications on atheistic paradigms, tell him, “Shut Up Einstein !”

Could you please stop playing Beethoven?

All it took was that one line for me to realize Tarantino had delivered and how. Of course Django Unchained is a treat for the eyes and the ears, Tarantino’s effortless style of showing off gratuitous glorified violence will make this movie an instant hit for all the aggressive, “I’m too cool for school”, yuppie generation that urban India seems to be breeding today. But what most of the people did not, perhaps will not get is the significance behind this one little seemingly uncharacteristic line that made me wonder if Tarantino’s having a chuckle at everyone’s expense wondering how many people caught his hidden gem right there. There is a scene where Schultz after having been bested by Candie and in the room a lady plays Beethoven’s Fur Elise on the harp, as the piece begins Schultz remembers the D’ artagnan being torn apart by rabid dogs. it builds to a point where Schultz tells the lady to stop playing Beethoven and she ignores him leading to a point where he physically restrains her from doing so. This one scene has just pointed out to you what a master Tarantino when it comes to morality and ethics.

A simplistic explanation and a stupid one at that would be Schultz is reminded of the barbarism through Beethoven’s music, while Beethoven’s music has been associated with violence on several counts including Psycho (1960), A Clockwork Orange (1971), Die Hard (1988), Immortal Beloved (1994), and Elephant (2003) (Reference: http://theomniscientidiot.blogspot.in/2012/12/the-d-is-silent.html) you would be wrong to assume a causal link between the two. The second explanation you could admit to would be that Schultz is horrified to hear his dear countryman’s music in such a house where barbarism and cruelty prevail. It is almost with artistic impunity that Schultz would deem his fellow German insulted to hear his music being played by what he would deem such uncultured and animalistic a race. You might be right with this explanation but you would not have uncovered the entire truth, with this one line Schultz does much more he talks about the moralistic superiority of a culture over another, he is much more than ashamed he would not have the pinnacle of art in his culture be played by one he feels has no ethical equal to his own. In short he is judging America and Tarantino is quite clear on this, with one line he pokes fun at the American hypocrisy of calling the Nazis barbarians and inhuman when they themselves descend from a culture equally if not more inhuman. Even before when Candie tells Django about Schultz being a little too green around the gills, Django answers by saying “I’m just a little more used to America than he is”. Tarantino right there has shown you the American’s ease with violence has appalled the German. This is not about the judgment of two cultures, but about the brilliance of a director who has conveyed so much in so little. He is telling you that all cultures at various points have descended into the depths of what we today term as inhuman behavior and conduct. To therefore claim moral superiority over any other is just hypocrisy.

Another instance where Tarantino shows his brilliance is when Schultz says, “Alexandre Dumas is black” now most would assume he says this to tell Candie that he wouldn’t approve of him naming his slaves after Dumas’s characters. But there’s more to it than that, right there Tarantino has just told you that the true person who runs Candieland in fact isn’t Candie but Stephen the butler. Candie is just the face for the business, to further back this up there is a scene when they approach the mansion, where Samuel Jackson is shown signing checks in Candie’s name. Even when he’s telling Django about his fate once he is captured, Jackson says, white folk never had a bright idea in their lives. If you’re one of those people who are right now clamoring Tarantino’s white and he made a movie on slavery, I would urge you to remember this sequence, for it will tell you that the true mastermind, the string-puller whatever you may choose to call him is still Jackson. What follows once again is brilliant dialogue where Jackson keeps repeatedly talking about the fate of a mine worker at the LeQuint Dickey Mining company and you know it is he who incepts the idea in Candie’s sister when she decides to sell Django to them.

But it’s not over yet, one might wonder why does he decide to make Schultz German, a German bounty hunter in America, why German and why Christoph Waltz? I’m of course a huge fan of Waltz and you might argue where else would you find an actor of his caliber who is as fluent in English, French and German and hence Waltz. But look at Tarantino’s timeline the same actor who plays the menacing Jew hunter is now a German who can’t tolerate slavery, the very same actor. The same Landa is now a bleeding heart, slave owner hater, who kills criminals and would rather sacrifice his life than endorse slavery or even shake the hand of a slave owner. What Tarantino I believe is telling you that races aren’t bad Germans aren’t uncultured boorish, Nazis, he is telling you to not hold responsible a race for the actions of a certain period because otherwise we’re all painted red by the same brush. To claim moral superiority as certain nations often do is plain and pure hypocrisy we all descend from the same bunch of humans who have at some point in time committed to degenerate behavior and inhuman conduct.

Let’s leave it that Tarantino says, for we’ve all been evil, we’ve all enjoyed the spilling of blood and we’re all equally savage.

PS I found this Article on the music arrangement of Django to be fascinating, do take a look.