Question Insanity

I finally finished reading "Who Killed Daniel Pearl" by Henry Bernard Levy. And, needless to say I am disturbed. I am unable to fathom the extent of man’s insanity, or at least his insane interpretations of tools of social control. As weird and ironical as it sounds, I still believe that equality as a proposition/principle (whichever way you look at it) thrives on the actuality of inequality. Tools of social control, or for that matter any aspect of any culture, or culture as a whole has failed to rein in what it was meant for – control the extent of human liberties. In a clash of metaphysical philosophies, the intangibility of one led to the demise of the other. Let me be clearer. The evidences of culture that we see today, as the word “evidence” indicates, are what we see. This tangibility of culture (as a crucial part of the whole) is minimal when compared to the whole of the conglomeration of beliefs that it actually is. The larger and the core of the ‘culture’ is what lies within the closed spaces of our skulls, therefore intangible. I believe that no one has absolute control over the overabundance of thoughts and ideas that exist in the head. Keeping science fiction theories at an arm’s length, or even farther, no machine, human, animal, science, or object, or technique can detect and examine the vectors in the mind. Without doubting the intention the formulation of any method of social control, it is pertinent to point out that in the war of the two largest indefinable forces that run everything on earth; it is without any doubt that it is the enigmatic mind that wins.

I do not wish to argue the reasons for the development of religious beliefs. As much as I would like to believe that it happened for the good; that it is the same despite the difference; that it is true, it is difficult for me to believe that this is the same religion that can arouse hatred. As much as I would like to believe what the sincerest faithfuls have to tell me about the absolute truth that their religion is, I still will doubt its veracity because evidences point out to the existence of the “other” gods too. As much as I would like to believe the point that pious humanists make about the existence of religion being the ramifications of one soul, the one God, I still will question his line of reasoning because the teachings of God in these separate religion that are similar have certain references in them that put them in direct conflict with each other. Did God being all knowing not see the consequences of such an action? The immediate answer (from most faithfuls) would be that these are the handiworks of the devil, Satan. Why does God allow Satan take greater precedence over him? I am ignorant but I have questions that no one will be able to answer satisfactorily other than God or probably I lack the faith to understand, or the curiosity that is dissatisfied by a priest’s answer because he is human who is as susceptible to errors as much as I am. I do not doubt the existence of God. I suspect the reasons why different religions spawned during the same time (or around it, at least) carrying the same message of love, goodwill and peace and yet puts each other with direct conflict. I may be insolent but there is something that is very unclear and nobody has questioned it yet, blame it on blind faith. I dislike blind faith especially when it has the potential to lead to insanity.

Or perhaps, we seek refuge in others because we lack belief in our own internal systems.