A Short Letter to the Young Muslim Studying Abroad

The young Muslim is facing a lot of challenge today. The challenges have been identified differently, every concerned Muslim with their perspective. I also have my perspective and even prescription which is simply to learn, be just and be critical. This doesn’t say much because it sounds like too general an advice. Or perhaps it says everything precisely because of that. Ohh well…

Below is a link to a letter I just wrote to my sister who has gone abroad to study. While writing it, it occurred to me that many others in her position could benefit from my little scribbles. So I wrote in a way it would apply to both male and female, Nigerian and non Nigerian. Go ahead and read it from the link below, then share it if it is found to be beneficial. You can save it too

A Short Letter to the Young Muslim Studying Abroad

 

Fasting Deep – With Leftover Iftar

This Ramadan, a (non-Muslim) friend sought me to solve a puzzle they had encountered about Muslim fasting in Ramadan: since the purpose of fasting is to feel the hunger of the poor and the needy (who are not able to afford meals), why is it that Muslims binge on food after sunset? That is indulgence in food. Astute, coming from a non Muslim because this observation escapes a lot of Muslims. I simply corrected my friend’s assumption that the WHY of fasting in Ramadan is to empathize with the poor and the needy. Actually, the WHY of fasting in Ramadan is that God instructed Muslims to do so, and it is even part of the pillars of Islam. However to feel the hunger of the poor and the needy in the society is actually an acceptable philosophy of fasting, by which Muslims can enrich the meaning of their fasting, by giving it this dimension of meaning. I think empathizing with the less fortunate is actually very much a spirit of the fasting in Ramadan.

By the act of fasting in simply abstaining from food and other bodily pleasures during the day, we fulfill our obligation to God. By fasting with the poor, the needy and the disadvantaged of society in mind, the act of fasting is nourished with meaning. This is what I call fasting deep; where depth depends on the worshiper’s level of philosophizing, empathizing and contemplating on the fast. By fasting deep, we improve our spirituality, we nourish our souls.

Let us be clear, Muslims should be fasting not feasting! We don’t see the two as opposing, or even contradictory because we say we can still fast and feast, innit?! Not when you realize that reducing your consumption and indulgence in bodily pleasure is at the core of the spirit of Ramadan. So when we do business as usual that is fasting-plus-feasting, our fasting is deficient in spirit, it is lacking soul; it is like robots playing the orchestra, it is dry, not soulful! You can call fasting-plus-feasting as Fasting Shallow. Why don’t we fast during the day, then eat regularly in the evening as we would when it is not Ramadan, at least in quantity if not in quality… Don’t get me started about how unhealthy a lot of Iftar food is.

It has not been easy trying to communicate this idea of fasting-not-feasting to people, I only mentioned it here out of stubbornness. Not giving up with this Da’wah against the tide of the villain consumerism! But even in this noble Da’wah, it might be necessary to tone down on the message to provide a conversion gradient; this could be achieved by having an intermediary step between fasting-plus-feasting to fasting-not-feasting would help. This intermediary step is the idea to be shared in this post: it is called Leftover Iftar! Instead of indulging in regular Iftar everyday, garnered leftover could be used for Iftar. For every three days of feast, how about you have one day of Leftover Iftar. That is to say in every Ramadan you could have upto seven Leftover Iftars… you decide on the frequency. Hint: the internet is full of creative ways to make fancy meal out of leftovers if you are interested, just search 🙂

Why does having a Leftover Iftar make one’s fast more soulful, or any deeper? because food conservation is a character of the ideal Muslim, more specifically aversion to waste and extravagance of any kind be it food, ones own wealth, or natural resources etc. Think about it this way. Fasting-plus-feasting is kinda like fasting and telling white lies, while fasting with Leftover Iftar is like fasting and telling the truth… may be there’s a better analogy. The point is that the spirit of the fasting is crippled by unhealthy caloric fattening with continuous feasting whereas it is healthier without the continuous feasting.

If you do Iftar with leftovers currently, now you can internalizing this act with meaning. What used to be an unfortunate condition can now be a conscious deep act full of meaning, and of course Soul! The least to be gained from Leftover Iftar is that people will try to put only what they can eat on their plate, to avoid the inevitable mess when we let our bodily desires to estimate what may satisfy our exaggerated hunger. Neat.

Deep fast is what stays with you after Ramadan because its effects is on your soul (or psychology or metaphoric heart). Shallow fast fades with the month of Shawwal, barely sustained by the Sitta ash Shawwal (six of Shawwal). Ever wonder why you don’t come out of Ramadan as an improved soul or with a better perspective on life? It is because your fast was not deep, not Soulful. You are what you feast on, but you are even more what you think (contemplate, philosophize) about, for meaning gives identity to your soul whereas food signifies your soul deputing your identity to your bodily pleasures. There are many other areas to improve the soulful-ness of your fast, many other areas to go deeper in your fast, having Leftover Iftar is one… InShaAllah 😉

Seek meaning. Contemplate. Fast Deep!

Apostasy in Kano – A New Frontier

Today started with an interesting twist in the news, it was neither the world cup nor ISIS nor Boko Haram, it was about apostasy in Kano, Nigeria. Unfortunately the day didn’t end with that because we later heard about attacks (and deaths) in Wukari, Taraba State and this afternoon a bomb blast in Abuja and Adamawa (the two almost simultaneous). God save the souls of dead victims, and provide for the living. However, I intended to write about the case of apostasy in the morning so I shall focus on that now.

The news reported that a young (Muslim) man from Kano denounced the existence of God, or so I heard. In response to this madness, his family took him to a psychiatric doctor but the doctor concluded that the man is mentally sound. The family unconvinced with this outcome sought second opinion, as would be expected in every grave medical case. The second doctor came to the conclusion that the young man suffers from a mental illness of personality disorder. According to the young man’s emails to IHEU (International Ethical and Humanist Union), the doctor proved the personality disorder by claiming that even Japanese believe in God! Of course these reports may have left out more that it reveals but it provides an interesting situation and opportunity for introspection.

Not long ago Saudi officially ruled that apostasy is terrorism; and so a punishable crime. This was Saudi’s response to a poll on Saudis where about 5% of Saudis identified themselves as atheists. This was shocking to Saudi powers since it undermines the blanket religious status of Saudi; a status that is arguably only for the cities of Makkah and Madinah. These self-identified athiests were probably keeping with outward religious observance since they if they weren’t they we would expect 1 out of every 20 Saudis to default from religious practices. Not long after the Saudi fiasco, in Sudan a woman (of Muslim father but raised by her Christian mother) was charged with apostasy for becoming Christian, and adultery for marrying a Christian. For the former the penalty was death, for the latter it was 100 lashes. While unsure of Saudi’s prescribed punishment for “terrorism”, many Muslims believe (or subscribe to the reading) that the punishment for apostasy is death penalty as in the case of Sudan.

Of course not all Muslims subscribe to this view. One first has to understand what apostasy meant during the time of the prophet. To conclude that the punishment for apostasy is punishable by death is either to cherry-pick utterances of the Prophet, or to disregard a Qur’an injunction for freedom of religion, or to neglect the prophet’s character, or to ignore context, or to ignore the different capacities from which the prophet gives commands, or to do all of this. Simply put, apostasy is equivalent to a threatening political treason, not a change of heart. This is not the place for the debate on whether apostasy is punishable or not, but it suffice to say it is not death!

Unfortunately more Muslims perhaps subscribe to the position that apostasy is punishable by death. At least it is scary enough to know that Muslims around you believe that. In light of this, the move by the parents of the young “atheist” in Kano, is perhaps one of love and protection, not of loathing. If I were a parent with an “atheist” child in Kano, I’d rather call it madness than try to reason with the child because to reason is to attract wrath of the public; especially when the child allegedly broadcasts his “atheist” views on twitter. This is not to say the average Muslim in Kano is violent, no way especially given the diverse communities of Muslims in Kano, but it makes him an easy target for those who would want to use his beliefs as an excuse.

The public’s reaction is another point of reflection. Many people are reporting the event as: A man in Kano has gone mad, he denounces God! Luckily I have heard the original report in the morning so I know it should be reported more accurately as: A man is being considered mad because he denounces God. If the difference between the two is not clear, let us examine further. By default majority of people accept and conclude that this person must be mad; just like his parents do. However we have good reasons to suspect his parents “concluded” that to protect him (psychological defense mechanism) whereas the public seems to genuinely believe he is mad. Perhaps many heard the story from hear-say so they were already given adulterated version of the story. However the public psyche is not one with so much of intolerance for apostasy, but of ignorance and shock of apostasy! The public does not seem to adequately grasp apostasy; in its legal ramification as we have seen, and its theological significance which we shall soon see. In addition, the public’s reaction to the shock is to attribute it to madness since madness explains all the unexplainables. I won’t be surprised if some people are already explaining the situation as a case of magic spell casted on the young man. It is a case of shock where Muslims are confused as what to do.

The final point of interest is the position of apostasy within theology. Muslim history has had enough scars that persist today due to the most heated theological debates that took place early in its history. It was so rich a tradition that it resulted in its own sciences; the science of Kalam (speculative theology). Blasphemy was equated with apostasy. When definition of apostasy differs from school to school, its meaning becomes only an indication of disagreement. It was not uncommon for opponents of different “schools of Kalam” to denounce the other as apostates aka Kuffaar. This strategy in Kalam still persist, but now everywhere even outside Kalam. Of course there were the likes of Al Ghazali who sought theological tolerance, but seeking tolerance is not as sensational as denouncing others. In essence much of that tradition, or at least in its present mutation, is a power struggle; people seeking to affirm their theological positions by deposing and apostatizing others.

With regard to the situation of the young man in Kano, it could be simply a case of him disagreeing with theological positions of others. Of course I say this with a caveat because I have not looked into the content of his claims for four reasons: avoid slipping from research into gossip; I got a clue about his type of “atheism” from a report by IHEU; I have to work on my 9-to-5 job; his situation is only relevant to me as a general case. In fact, I know people who know the young man closely, to some extent, but I have not ventured into that. All I have from the report by IHEU is that he was being blasphemous and that he denied Adam (the first Man) existed. I am not surprised if it is based on this that he was accused of atheism; unless he is a self-identified atheist. Or if as some say, he denied existence of God, then of course that would be literally an atheist. Like I said it would not be surprising if he was simply accused of atheism but his concern about Adam is one that is being debated even among scholars that are grounded in the scripture. I have written about it within the framework of evolution. Of course these scholars do not deny an Adam, they simply have a different interpretation of Adam not in the literal sense but with an evolutionary slant. All this may say more about the intellectual desertion of Muslims and their unpreparedness to face of the challenges of this age where we are brought up on post European-Enlightenment reasoning.

Were many to ask certain questions about their held beliefs, they might end up becoming apostates. And many are aware of this. So the solution many have taken is to not ask questions, rather than to ask the questions properly and seek to resolve them within the proper framework. The Qur’an in numerous places assures us that if we were to proceed with proper reasoning, we would always be lead to God. Certainly reasoning according to European Enlightenment has its merits but it is deficient especially because of the historical baggage in its formation. What if the young man had all these questions but the religious community could not engage him on the level he was thinking? This is a wake up call to Muslims.

The situation says something about Muslims’ intellectual standing as a religious community especially in the field of apologetics. Muslims in Nigeria have been too comfortable with picking-on Christianity for far too long; that is what I call much of the prevalent straw-man debates with Christianity. Now a new breed is in town, it is atheism. Debates with atheism has been going on in many countries for a while now, especially “western” countries. I welcome this because perhaps it will change the position of Muslims from constantly trying to convert Christians to a more introspective position when they might have to reason through their beliefs because they take so much for granted. Of course it is for those who care to get involved in the debate.

 

Military Order… of Things – Part 1

Right now, at a junction in Abuja. Mr A’s car hit Mr B’s car from behind. Mr A comes out of his car yelling at Mr B, at the top of his voice. Mr B, remained calm and did not even protest, despite the crash not being his fault. Mr A persisted on yelling. Mr B made a simple phone call and 10 minutes later, a truck full of army soldiers come. The rest is well… a valuable lesson in pain and humiliation for Mr A. 

 

Another story…

 

Last week, at a parking lot in Abuja. A woman (you know women can’t drive) reversed into a man’s car. The man’s car is a Peugeot 406. On coming out she started yelling at the victim of her bad driving. He pointed out that it was actually her fault and that she should be the one apologizing. Being that she comes from a well off middle class family, and her husband is well off enough to buy her a Honda CRV, she felt that was an insult. Infuriated at the man’s lack of concern which made her look like a mad woman, she slapped the man. Then she said: wait until my husband comes. She called her husband, while the slapped man made a phone call too (perhaps to his wife). Her husband arrived at the scene to save the day by further putting that man in his place; the husband started yelling at the man. The man said nothing. Soon enough guess what appeared… yes a truck full of army soldiers came. So the man didn’t call his wife after all! The first thing one of the soldiers did was to “sweep” the husband off his feet, reducing his height as if to put him in place where a civilian ought to be before a general. Then the lessons began. The next day the battered husband leaves the guard-room of a nearby army barrack thinking about what to do to his wife for getting him into this humiliating (and hurtful) experience.  

 

Ohh did you hear about this one…  

 

Last month, at a road-side paid parking space in Abuja. A man parked but could not find the ticket seller around, so he parked without paying. He came back and his car was clamped. He told the parking officials that their actions were unjustified but they refused to listen. He brought out his phone to make a phone call… I’m sure you get how the story goes at this point.

 

All these stories, true or not, have a pattern. To avoid debating about its authenticity, I refer to them as parables because they are all about lessons and morals. So what is the lesson common to all these parables? It may be tempting to say the lesson is that the army officer is always right, or the army officer is calm and level headed until he (not she) gets pushed. All these are lessons derived from these stories but two other lessons are of interest to this post. The first lessons is that one should treat every other person with respect because you don’t know WHO they are. The second lesson is that it is permissible for the army to behave like gangsters. I hope, like me, you think these lessons if accepted result in a dysfunctional society. 

 

The main worry is that these dysfunctional lessons have been accepted and imbibed by us. In fact, we are purveyors of these lessons over time, like religious traditions passed through generations. This is “scientifically” proven because I designed and conducted an experiment. I created a fictional story with the pattern of the above parables; so it became a parable. My version was more dramatic because someone gets slapped and beaten on the scene before the main “lessons” begin. What follows is my experiment. I created two versions of the same story. In the first version of story, I tell my experiment targets the story where a citizen makes a phone call to his buddies to serve as his muscles in “dealing” with the situation. Then I tell the second version of the story (which changes in inconsequential detail) where it is an army officer calling a truck of soldiers to do his bidding. Then I ask for the legal and moral analysis of the situation, in a casual way of course. The general response from my targets is that what the citizen did is unlawful, gangsterly, and wrong. However in the case of the army officer, they are not unanimous if it is unlawful, certainly not gangsterly, and not wrong. Amazing! We have a different set of morality for military and for other citizens. Is military above the law? Theoretically we say no to this question. In practice, we believe and act like so.

 

Continue with Part 2 here

Military Order… of Things – Part 2

Read Part 1 here

 

In light of the recent insurgencies, and especially the attacks on civilians, I had an intense discussion on HOW the army could solve this problem. To summarize the two sides of the argument, my counterpart argued that army should be given the authority to do a “sweep” and flush the combatants from the citizens using tried and proven military tactics. I argued that it should not be so because the military tactics in question could only be possible if the army is subjected to a different set of morality. My counterpart agreed but ultimately supports that the army have a different set of morality from other citizens because they need to be “effective”. This is how we believe and act like so. The army is a therefore a different specie of animal. This is not scientific, but it is a potent myth. A myth we ought to revisit and assess if it’s usefulness outstrips its harms. Generally, I believe myths could be useful, as much as harmful… so where does this myth of an army lies? 

 

 

Personally I see nothing respectable or impressive about the army; certainly not. I see nothing disrespectable about the army in itself either. Instead I subject them to the same standards as other citizens; even other citizens come across situations or moral decisions in their daily line of work. However given the pervasive myth that enables the army to do as it likes in terms of Human Rights abuse, I am more likely to disrespect the army. Aside from abuse of law and Human Rights, what virtue is there in being a robot who is good at executing orders and not “commanded” to think morally?      

 

To put the issue of modern state army in context, which provides the blue print for most modern states, it may be insightful to visit the history of its formation. This history would be most justly presented by a Marxist account but I shall say it in brief. The army is essentially a well funded, well trained, full time mercenaries of the government used as the element of coercion for and defence of private/capitalist/mercantile interests. Prior to this modern “invention”, many soldiers were “ordinary folk” drafted on demand, and what they did was considered service even if compensated because they were expected to BELIEVE in what they fight/stand for. Even then there were mercenaries, but they were not considered as respectable or honourable. This picture may not have applied to all pre-modern societies but it is general enough. At the core of army, the duty of the modern soldier is to do the bidding of the Almighty Nation via its priests who are those in higher ranks.

 

In a similar vein I have issues with Nationalism. For non military citizens, what does it even mean to be patriotic if patriotism is built on the idea of a modern nation state? (Any ideas?)

 

Such a burden… such a commitment to the military… I wondered how soldiers do it. The military is an ideology as potent as Marxism. It is often said that “true” Marxists cannot reconcile their Marxism with their religion, so by inference they can’t be “true” practitioners of a deistic religion. These allegations are possible on Marxism because the fundamentals of the philosophy have been eloquently expressed and found incompatible with such religions. However in the case of the military I don’t know about an expressed philosophy, but the military relies on indoctrination on certain virtues like loyalty. Loyalty! Ahh what a virtue! The military is not a party of philosophers (like Marxists), it is a cult, and cults have initiation rituals for indoctrination. For instance I have heard there is an initiation tradition (fancy word for a ritual) where newly recruited officers into Nigerian Military “confess” their sins for being “bloody civilians” until then. “Bloody civilian” is one of those terms we have accepted without pondering on the ontological relevance of these claims; we “bloody civilians” even use it in jest.

 

Army Ritual… a little extreme. US Marine

   

Fact: In the hierarchy of the military order of the world (especially Nigeria), the Military is superior to the policeman. Interestingly, the Police, like us believe so… the military order of the world also posits that the police man is superior than the bloody civilian.

 

I was motivated to write about this because of a short video I came across. It captures some of what I have been trying highlight on this post namely: the tension between Nationalistic Values and Morality (as defined by other belief systems). This is the case of Orthodox Jews (religious scholars) protesting against the decision of Israeli state to draft them into military service. The state of Israel was built on Zionism, which defines a nationalistic morality not a Jewish morality. Also the State of Israel understands the potent function of modern military as an indoctrination ground. Find the video (8 mins) below to appreciate the situation.

 

A Thought Experiment on Polygamy

Imagine five people tied to a train track and a train fast approaching such that there is no time to reach the people and free them. On a separate train track to the side of those five people, there is one person similarly tied. In front of you is a button which if pressed, would divert the moving train from the path of five people to the path of the one person. Death is inevitable, time is running out! Would you press the button?

Alternatively imagine a similar situation however this time, there is no button and no track with one tied person. Instead the one person is standing beside you, far from the five about to die. But the train has to pass you to reach those helpless five. The person beside you is fat enough that if they were to happen to be hit by the train from your position, the train would slow down to a stop and not hit the five people ahead. Of course the fat person would die as a result. All it takes if for you to push the fat person. Would you?

This is a rendition of a classic thought experiment in (western) philosophy under morality. People vary in their answers, even though there are just about two options, because their reasons for selecting the same answer may be vary considerably. Thought Experiment is a tool of Philosophy which science cannot afford; even though psychology borrows often.

Some days ago, while discussing the issue of polygamy among Muslims, I came up with a thought experiment which I thought I should share. I had my motif for designing that experiment. I would like to present the experiment as simple as possible, however the issue of polygamy in Islam has deep ideological and cultural sentiments attached to it. Therefore I shall try to create a fair ground (objectivity) in the experiment by providing neutralizing information to the simple experiment. Here is the experiment, simply:

A Muslim man who is married to a woman meets another woman and is overcome by passion for this new woman. This passion can be anything; sexual, intellectual or spiritual. He would do anything to get married to her. It turns out she is available for him to marry, and even inclined to marry him as well. He is certain his life (spiritual and otherwise) would be greatly enhanced if with this woman. Should he marry this woman? Keep in mind one thing: that Shari’ah allows for men to marry up to four wives at a time.

Now the second question

A Muslim woman who is married to a man meets another man and is overcome by passion for this new man. The same passion applies in this situations and she would do anything to marry this man. It also turns out that the man is inclined to marry her were she not bounded by marriage. She is certain her life (spiritual and otherwise) would be greatly enhanced if with this man. Should the woman marry this man?

The following are what to keep in mind (The neutralizing information):

• The Shari’ah does not allow for a woman to have more than one husband at a time.
• The Shari’ah allows for a woman to initiate a divorce, and effect it with the approval of the court or the husband.
• Men and Women are considered equal in Islam because they are essentially souls that will be judged not based on the bodies they were given but based on how they related with the bodies they were given(e.g. how did they respond to their passions; which love falls under)
• For this experiment, disregard the societal unfairness weighed on women where men can effect a divorce even by slip-of-the-tongue, whereas women would have to go through societal hurdles, juristic restrictions decided by males, and even stigma before succeeding in their plead for divorce. Disregard this in our fair world of thought-experiment.
• The verses in the Qur’an (Q2:229, Q4:128) that talk about a woman’s right to divorce can be interpreted to empower women much more than it is often presented, while remaining faithful to the spirit of the Qur’an (actually I think it would be more faithful)
• It is on record that The Prophet (acting as the Islamic Court/Judge) granted the request of a woman who wanted divorce from her husband, not because he lacked in character or his religious duties but because she feared she would continue to “behave in an un-Islamic manner” if she remains with him (Bukhari 63:197). I’d like to think that covers all situations where dislike of the husband festers the mind of the woman to an extent that she wishes evil on him for nothing wrong he has done.
• A woman who has been married to a man for some time should be able to bring up so many cases to buttress her point of making her “behave in an un-Islamic manner”. Just as we cannot ascertain the sincerity of the man who says he is adding a wife because she is well behaved; not simply out of passion.

It is interesting to note that what men give as reasons for having another wife varies depending on their community and what is considered as acceptable. Some proudly boast that they marry more wives because they like more women and find pleasure in that; that is because their community accepts such statements. Others however would give other reasons. The point is that reasons given are likely no more than justifications, culturally variable, rather than the sincere reason that prompted them to marry extra. Similarly a woman only needs to justify herself properly in the court of the thought-experiment.

I reiterate the situation of the woman:

A Muslim woman who is married to a man meets another man and is overcome by passion for this new man. This passion can be anything; sexual, intellectual or spiritual. She would do anything to get married to him. It also turns out that the man is inclined to marry her were she not bounded by marriage. She is certain her life (spiritual and otherwise) would be greatly enhanced if with this man. Should the woman marry this man even if it means orchestrating her divorce with the current husband?

Whatever your answer, how is that different from your answer for the situation of the man. Remember, in this world of thought-experiment, women and men are essentially equal in Islam because they are essentially souls that will be judged not based on the bodies they were given but based on how they related with the bodies they were given. Should the woman seek divorce in order to marry the other man?

If you haven’t guessed by now, my motif for this thought experiment is that I think simply wanting a different/variety of spouses is not a good enough reason for men to marry more than one wives. Reason here is referring to the sincere reason that may be only known to the person and God, not what the person claims.

 

Death of Depression

What is the point of death? Theist and Atheists differ on the answer from the perspective of the dead person. It must be cherished then that they both agree that death’s significance to others is to trigger introspection and collective questions whose answers may change the course of history for individuals or even communities; answers ranging from worldly achievements to preparedness for the hereafter. History, both your family’s and those studied by scholars, are rich with examples.

I just received news that someone, a friend of people close to me, whom I might or might not have met, committed suicide yesterday. This post is not to give details of the very unfortunate event, for that may invoke empathy, condolence remarks, or tragic entertainment (after all people pay to watch tragedies since the time of Shakespeare). This post is to highlight the tragic event by underplaying the identity of the victim because it is enough that he/she is a friend of people close to me, whom I might or might not have met. That said, my deep condolence to the family and acquaintances of the victim.

The circumstances of the event, as I heard it, suggests depression has played a significant part in the turn out. This is the question that this death has challenged us with: How are we dealing with depression? Another question ought to have preceded, which is: what is Depression; a mood or a disease? In the sixties (or seventies), psychologists thought that mood and psychological diseases were the same, and so flourished the era of mood controlling drugs; which culminated in Designer Drugs that are fashionable today. In the last decade (or so) this point of view is being adjusted as disconcerting statistics stare at people (mostly Americans) revealing the startling percentage of children and adults on mood controlling drugs. Therefore the last decade saw the re-acceptance of some “psychological diseases” as “regular human emotions”. The result of this adjustment spurred another radical branch which not only believes depression is a disease, but preaches that depression is a disease! Like any preacher of Gospel, they are also convinced that their Gospel is the truth, and in it is the salvation of humanity from the Hell of depression.

From where I stand, depression is real. It cannot be ignored. People of the past interacted with depression using myths and superstitions; this persists even today. Some people of today react to depression by taking drugs; both narcotic and Designer Drugs. Some psychologists examine depression until depression fails. The spiritually inclined explain depression as the effect of distancing oneself from God. Some of the religiously inclined explain depression with fatalism; which is surprisingly an efficient way to recover from depression. All these are options that could be argued as “tried and tested”, in so far as their success is measured by the seizure of depression even if momentarily. That raises the question of whether depression is simply a symptom of internal imbalance in an individual, which all the above make disappear. Imbalance of the chemical, the psychological or the spiritual?

Back to the question. How are we dealing with depression? Whatever the answer is, it can’t be working since it has lead to suicide. Deaths ought not to be the yardstick for measuring the effects of depression, but death is not only a poignant questioner, it is a distracting answer. How are we dealing with depression? Are we supposed to deal with depression, or is it supposed to deal with us gracefully? There is no right answer for the wrong question.

This question that is so important, death itself was made the messenger. A message so important you can’t kill the messenger even if you wanted to. As we attempt to answer this question, and pave the direction for our future, I implore that we be weary of taking the path of depression as a disease resulting from chemical imbalance. Frankly I would like us to do away with the drugs option if possible because we know most drugs treat symptoms more than they treat diseases (some drugs are said to only keep you comfortable until your body treats/heals itself).

Small Pox was eradicated with evangelic zeal. Polio remains a challenge due to counter religious zeal. Should preachers of depression as a disease succeed, would that lead to the Death of Depression?

Who is susceptible to depression? In a society rife with drug abuse and overflowing with faith in the gods of consumerism, it could be anyone. Referring to the case of death that prompted me to write, the victim could be someone you know, a friend of people close to you, whom you might or might not have met.

 

 

Watching Football and Existential Crises

Recently I wrote a post on the relationship between watching series and existential crises. Watching series is a phenomenon, it is a social force that could be harnessed for progress or to impede progress; regardless of which direction, it is a social force that must not be ignored. The previous post argued that this social force suppresses a needed existential crises which is one way to achieve consciousness revolution. Thus watching series is a key suppressant of a country’s promising Consciousness Revolution. We also found that it could be used to enrich a revolutionized consciousness.

It was suggested that I make an attempt at peoples occupation with football championship. I thought I should try…

Seeing that watching series is so pervasive, perhaps the only other entertainment phenomenon that can compete with it is watching football (soccer) championship. This may not be the case with regards to hours spent per day, but it is certainly the case when it comes to how deep it penetrates and affects psyche of the audience. Therein lies the first observation about the negative effects of these social forces; Watching series is mostly passive (suppressant) in its effect while watching football is more active in its effect. This statement shall be clarified in what follows.

Football Team Logos

First let us recall the definition of Existential Crises, but this time a richer definition of Fitrah follows

“Definition: For the sake of this post we shall describe Existential Crises as that moment in a person’s life where they seek answers to the foundations of their existence. This is the moment where people’s response makes them become Born-Again, or “Ustaz”. Managing Existential Crises properly is important because it could lead to fanaticism. From Muslim view of the natural state of man (Fitrah), Existential Crises is bound to happen when the soul yearns to find meaning, which is the souls way of seeking God. However, many other things have been used to quench this yearning.”

Since Muslims believe that God breathed his Spirit into man [Q32:9], man’s quest to find God can be seen as the human soul’s way of reuniting with its source, or returning home. Hence the soul’s yearning may be animated by nostalgia which flows unregistered to our minds because it is buried deep below human consciousness. This mission-driven attribute of the soul can be seen as the Fitrah; the inclination of the soul towards God.

Most monotheistic religions would agree that God cannot be comprehended my the human mind. Different religions have devised ways to comprehend God in bits that human mind can make sense of, usually by a reductionist approach; which is to try understanding aspects/attributes of God. The reductionist approach only approximates God because the sum of the discernible aspects of God is not equal the whole of God (not your conventional arithmetic). The axiom is that God is not separate from His attributes. Some Christian theologians formulated the concept of Trinity. On the other hand, Muslim theologians understand God through God’s divine attributes e.g. The Most Merciful, The Noble, The Sustainer etc. It is my contention that the soul, being bound to humans, also understands God by attributes or representation. That is to say if the soul were a computer, it would have come with a memory containing all/some of God’s attributes, and a program (which is Fitrah) on how to identify those attributes from any object. For instance, Fitrah would be seeking the Most Merciful (or any of the God’s attributes simultaneously), then if it finds an “object” in the world that has that attribute, it tries to identify all the other (or as many) attributes of God. If it succeeds in the comparison, it continues with next attribute until it reaches a point where it says Aha! this Object must be God!

We shall continue with the Muslim understanding of God. For every attribute identified, Fitrah becomes fulfilled and the soul feels that much closer to God; its source. At this point, it should be noted that among the known attributes of God (many are not known), only a few have been argued to be uniquely God’s. One such is The Most Merciful (Ar-Rahmaan), whereas another attribute like The Dispenser of Mercy (Ar-Raheem) may be attributed to other than God; it is difficult to show this in English since I chose to use the superlative “Most” but the point is one is unique to God.

Another thing to note is that Fitrah is susceptible to fault, or put another way, open to corruption; just like computer programs can be corrupted by virus. This is no news to those familiar with sciences of psychology, which is similar to a biological system that becomes faulty: e.g. a person’s immune system start attacking the body instead of protecting it; or when absorbed nutrients are fed to cancer cells which grow to harm the individual. Nonetheless, once upon a time, a baby’s biological systems were pristine even if a “disabled” baby. Then overtime, physical intake (of substances) or physical interactions with the physical body lead to biological systems becoming faulty. The human psychological system may become faulty from experiences a person is exposed to. Nature, Nurture eh? A person’s soul is tied to their psychological state, and thus to their Fitrah.

I am aware that up until this point, its been talk about theology, biology,  and psychology, nothing on football yet. There are two reasons: the first is that football championship as an entertainment phenomenon is that complex under the hood; the second reason is I don’t watch football even when I used to play it so I wouldn’t have much to say. However I am surrounded by people who are fixated on football championships.

Before getting into football, I beg your pardon for another brief detour; it is about transcendence. What is transcendence? We come across transcendence commonly through the virtue of selflessness; or perhaps we know what it is not, through selfishness. If I got a naira for every time a Nigerian uses the compound word “selfish interest” to describe the state of the country, I would be a billionaire! Selflessness is the opposite of selfishness. If you have ever had the chance to be genuinely selfless (e.g. help someone without expecting a thank you), there is a heartwarming feeling that accompanies the act. That is a taste of transcendence! The person has gone beyond themselves through an act. To explore transcendence more deeply, one needs to refer to the mystics of many religions. My favorite are Islam’s Sufis.

 

For the sake of this post: Sufis are Muslims mystics that take this quest of Fitrah (for the soul to meet its Source, God) as the ultimate goal of life. Therefore they have devised systems of training in which the Fitrah’s goal is sought in all of one’s actions and interactions. The feeling of transcendence is one way Sufis measure if they are making progress; longer duration in the state of transcendence is a good sign. There are two ways (for the sake of this post) to reach transcendence: through private meditation/action; and through communal interactions. Unfortunately stereotype of Sufis seem to focus on the former; we shall focus on the latter. The neglect of communal interactions is in spite of the fact that the middle-ages has been filled with Sufi brotherhoods that span many countries offering communal services like hostel for travelers, while some where secret societies. Community life offers many opportunities to improve transcendence not only in inter-personal interactions but also in the idea of having a common cause that unites all, which is a selfless endeavour. This common cause is bigger than the sum of the causes of individuals that make the community; it is that feeling of brotherhood and fraternity based on spiritual links not blood ties. Blood may be thicker that water but it is not as sublime as the spirit.

My theory now all fits together. I wonder if there is any reason to explain further. By way of example, let us take a typical fan of Chelsea FC (It’s popular and easy to spell). But we are not really concerned with the fan, we are more interested in the fan’s Fitrah. The Fitrah, which determines the “actions” of the soul, is busy searching for God using all permutations of God’s attributes on “objects” it encounters. When it encounters ordinary folks like you and I, it dismisses them easily because “ordinary” doesn’t stand out. When it encounters celebrities/superstars who are exceptional, then it finds a “match” (more similarity) for God’s attribute **The Great**. This Fitrah is infected with a “virus”. Alas you see, the media is not the most responsible for our exaggeration/goddifaction of celebrities, its the Fitrah man!

When we have celebrity preference and put them for rivalry, it is Fitrah’s way of trying to be monotheistic by not assigning the same importance to many god-heads. However, Fitrah also sees institutions (like Sufi brotherhoods) as objects to be compared for God’s attributes. So Fitrah of our Chelsea fan compares UEFA Champions League for God’s attribute **The Magnificient**. It would likely find similarities. In addition there is the transcendence feeling that comes with the global brotherhood/fraternity of football; that infectious football fever. Anywhere two football fans meet, football fever affords them a common language to start conversation. In the trinity of Celebrity, Institution, and Fraternity, the Fitrah of the Chelsea fan has found what it believes are aspects of God.

Football Championship phenomenon has constructed its subtle and frail theology where prophets are star players, devils are opposing players, the community/ummah/church is the football team, spiritual reward is transcendence in football fever, and team symbols/logos are the crosses/crescents. Watching Football is church-service/mosque-prayers in this religion. Following the dramas and controversies that abound football players and teams is reminiscent of the scandals of the Greek gods that their worshipers were attentive to. Debates on football look no different from theological debates between opposing sects of a religion; interestingly, football as in religious debates, some “sects” are allies not because they agree but because they have a common opposition. Another worthy point of similarity is people’s use of reason in both Football and Religion; it is used to justify choices rather than for insight and contemplation on choices. The question is who are the priests of this football religion? You guessed right, it is Corporations with one overriding goal which is to make the most profit, with little or no ethical considerations.

Sky Corporation and Football Teams it preaches

On reflection, this Football religion makes me wonder if people’s practice of actual religions (especially the dramas, controversies and inflexible debates) are not simply other ways to arrive at the same goal as the faithful of the Football religion. Any wonder why hooligans and religious fanatics are so similar? Could we ever know the difference between the two? I argue we can! First, religion has an ethical framework which should ideally regulate those noisy controversies and debates. Secondly, religion (Islam) clarifies the hierarchy of beings/objects in existence as the most fundamental article of belief; this hierarchy is encoded in Tawhid (which is the Unity of God and Ontological heirarchy) where God alone is at the apex.  It is so important some Muslim theologians even claim that belief in supremacy of God is sufficient for faith. Tawhid is what consciously makes every other god-figure be perceived as nothing other than what they are because the Fitrah would have assigned to God those common God’s-attributes that are mistakenly assigned to god-figures. In other words, Fitrah would have been free from virus. There are other points of difference between Religion and Football, however this is about (the religion of) Football.

With regards to existential crisis, following football championship prevents existential crises by creating the illusion of answers to questions that would be raised during an existential crises.

Can you see how this can explain our celebrity madness/worship (even “religious” celebrities), the concept of patriotism, fanaticism (religious and otherwise)…? If you don’t see the connection, I might have to rewrite the whole of this post using a different model other than of Fitrah.

I understand some extreme groups (e.g. Al Shabaab) have taken it upon themselves to forbid watching of football championships on account that it prevents Muslims from carrying out their obligatory duties like the five daily prayers on time. Well that is quite… umm extreme. This post is not to say that watching football is equivalent to polytheism but it is a godly distraction. It just needs to be put in its place.

As a final note, you might have noticed there was no mention of actually playing football, instead it was the watching/following of football that was focused on. My reason is that I believe the two are quite different, the only thing they have in common is football. Playing football requires dedication whereas watching/following football requires devotion! Like I said, I am not a football person, I’m a basketball person, which I play 2-3 times a week. I learnt that watching/following a sport is not the same as playing that sport because I really like playing basketball but have never been able to watch/follow it (except finals for some reason). Many of my fellow basketballers have judged me almost hypocritical because how could I get all dressed up for basketball and frequent the court (basketball’s mosque) yet I lack devotion to the prophets of basketball. Subahanallah! That is very close to the description of a hypocrite (Munaafiq) in the Qur’an… Am I a Basketball Munaafiq?! LOL

Watching Series and Existential Crises

Do I Still Watch Series?

Yes, I still try to find time to. I used to be a Big-Fan of series. Only recently I started to appreciate it. I should ‘ve written this post a while ago, but a discussion today prompted me to articulate it here.

If asked, I would say watching series is a waste of time. This answer is not free from the context it is asked, or even who is asking; so different people might get different answers. The reason is that those different people are likely to be the different me at two points in my life; when I was simply a Big-Fan, and when I began to appreciate. Many people I know are simply big-fans of watching series.

During my Big-Fan days, I was simultaneously following about 30 series that were currently airing, so I had about 30 episodes to download and watch every week!

Many Big-Fans are the epitome of time wasting. The average teenager/youth with access to series spends three hours daily watching series (no data, just estimation in my head). Someone once pointed out to me how computer-savvy my generation is; pointing to the proliferation of young people with laptops (in Nigeria). That is misleading, because most laptops are simply dvd-players or a (flat) tube for watching series (and movies). Some computers have never even seen a word processor like Microsoft Word, some have the trial version of Microsoft Office that came with it and it is not surprising to click on Microsoft Word only to be prompted that it has either expired or that it should be setup for the first time of opening it.

Apart from entertainment, a major reason big-fans have is to while away time. We are slaves to the clock (not time): when we setup alarms before going to sleep; when we race to meet lectures/office because the clock tells we are running late; when we watch the time expectantly towards end of a lecture/work-day… We usually start our day by paying homage to our master by futile attempts to trick him when we snooze our way into his favor, five minutes at a time. Later on we pray to God. Our relationship to the clock is slavery, because it either demands haste from us, or we seek delay from it. However we are strangers to time because it is soft spoken compared to the Clock, though insidious When faced with “free” time, many of us are clueless what to do with it. We avoid confrontation with time because it might get us to contemplate about those meaningful things that might shake the foundations of our existence. So we shy away from intimacy with time using past times as distractions. A very popular past time is watching series, and the most shy among us are the Big-Fans!

Definition: For the sake of this post we shall describe Existential Crises as that moment in a person’s life where they seek answers to the foundations of their existence. This is the moment where people’s response makes them become either born again, or “Ustaz”. Managing Existential Crises properly is important because it has lead to fanaticism in the past. From the Muslim view of the natural state of man (Fitrah), Existential Crises is bound to happen when the soul yearns to find meaning, which is the souls way of seeking God. However, many other things have been used to quench this yearning.

Being a Big-Fan is a symptom to be taken seriously. It indicates a deep psychological crises, a life lacking meaning, a numb and tranquilized mind, an anxiety towards confrontation with time, a fear of intimacy with time; murkiness for reflection. The natural (correcting) order of things, through contemplation on our lives, would have demanded some form of meaning in our lives by triggering an Existential Crises. However watching series numbs that corrective tendency. The cathartic and continual property of series makes it so easy for us to extend a piece of our lives into the series that we feel an empty space whenever a series finale runs. We feel a hole is created in our souls. However, there has always been a hole which is to be filled with life meaning/purpose, instead with fill it with the next available series. Unfortunately, series cannot fill a hole not meant for it, rather it takes our attention away from the hole. We remain un-whole.

It is interesting that in Arabic, series is Salsalah, which also means chains. Are we simply watching series, or are we chaining ourselves (souls) in the process?

In contrast to feature films (movies), series are just bad investment of time! Every time you make a decision to begin watching a series you are not only investing the time to watch one episode. No, you are investing the (future) time you don’t have yet to watch all the other episodes as they are released. You are also investing time in the coming years which you must use to follow up on the subsequent seasons. Say you started watching the season 1 of the series 24 in 2002. Then you would be committing yourself to spend 24 hours of 2002, and 24 hours for each of the subsequent 8 years. Therefore by simply taking the decision to watch season 1, you are investing 194 hours of your life to Jack Bauer and CTU :).

These criticisms of watching series (not necessarily the ones above) have lead some to make watching series almost sinful. I disagree, even though there’s more negative stuff to be added about watching series. One important criticism to add here is the consumerist feature of popular series; it is like the more series you watch, the cooler you are. But it is not only consumerist from the consumer side, it is also from the producer side because the series are designed to tease and meet your carnal fantasies, give you the gossipers ultimate reality (knowing every juicy story about someone’s life), pausing episodes/seasons just where you will be craving for more… More of what?!

More entertainment. Less time. Less life meaning. More numbness of the mind. More impotence of the soul.

Before I go into my justification for such an ostensibly bad habit, let us explore some aspects of the entertainment industry. Given it’s consumerist doctrine (as listed above), it relies on controlling the consumers. Consumers, in media as in other products, are controlled with one key assumption, that they give in to their psychological insecurities and sweet sins: e.g. the sweetness of gossip makes us want to know how Ross will finally propose to Rachel (Friends), or if Bree would take Olson back after all he has done (Desperate Housewives); our fantasies on fame and sex want to live the life of Vince (Entourage); Our un-doable immodesty in the real world want to take a peak at Shirtless Mc Steamy (Grey’s Anatomy); We won’t be caught having sex, at least not that way, but we don’t mind the sex scenes between Ann Boleyn and King Henry (The Tudors) etc. The point is: without conscious awareness, will and effortful control, we are robots at the hands of the series/movies industry (as in other industries).

One other aspect that is capitalized on so much is (what I call) our gossipy-curiosity which is the reason we get “hooked” to a series. We DO get addicted to some series. We project our lives into the fiction, at the expense of awareness of our real world. It is not unhealthy to “escape” reality once is a while, but it is something else to feel uncomfortable/anxious in reality that one craves to go back to fiction; as if the fiction is the person’s reality. Many lovers of TV have reported being depressed with their lives, but they don’t feel depressed when watching series; you might have experienced depression after watching a season especially in a short time. I wonder what gives some of us the moral high-ground to criticize how absorbed kids get into cartoon channels these days. So I identified gossipy-curiosity as a major tool used to control me.

On the other hand, series (and movies) expose us to a lot of new experiences; even if fictitious and virtual. It is like travelling without moving. The issue then is how accurate is the depiction of reality in series? (This same question could be directed at international news channels). However experiences are not limited to representation of facts, but also the experience/insight of new concepts and different philosophical worldview. It then becomes imperative for one to equip themselves with Critical Thinking before delving into series in order to avoid being misled; philosophically and fact wise. With a modest mind of Critical Thinking, watching series can provide opportunities to broaden our horizons.

In light of all these goods and bads of watching series, I have prepared a formula (or philosophy) for myself on how I engage with series in the following two statements. I only watch a series if it brings something new to the table (my head; can broaden my horizon). I focus on the concepts/themes/facts rather than the juicy story line so that I am not vulnerable to gossipy-curiosity.

Once upon a time, I would simply get any series and start watching episode with only a vague or no idea of background information, as long as the video looks entertaining. My new philosophy requires me to first find out what a series has to offer me that I am not already familiar with because my time is precious. The new philosophy has also allowed be to be able to quit watching ANY series after the first season, without a haunting regret.

Let me illustrate with an example. When Game of Thrones was recommended to me, it took me a few months and repetitive recommendations before I decided to look it up on the internet. I was immediately excited (and surprised) to find out that it was produced by HBO. HBO has produced some of my best series because of how realistic they are; The Wire and The Sopranos etc. So I was expecting realism but then Game of Thrones is set in a fantasy world. I was interested in how these will come together. This is bringing something new to my table; or rather mixing two things already on my table in a way I had not envisioned. Now I have watched 2 or 3 seasons of it, I am quite satisfied with how it has broadened my mind, but now I can’t be bothered to follow up with other seasons; even though it’s the type that you get hooked-on. Another example is Boardwalk Empire which brings to the table a fact-inspired history of USA Organized crime and its part in politics and economy of the country; features historical figures like young Al Capone, young J Edgar Hoover, Ponzi (of Ponzi Scheme) etc. I watched the first two seasons, and I feel no urge to continue… but I might. Then there is Downton Abbey which also brings to the table a fact-inspired history of England through the domestic life of a Yorkshire aristocratic family. Very nice. However I can’t be bothered to follow up with the romance of Lady Mary and Mathew.

On the other hand I don’t see why I should waste time watching umm… they are too many to mention but you know them; they are all those that would be difficult to make a case for bringing anything new to the table, if anything at all. Even with comedy series, one of my best is The Office (UK and US), and that has brought a novel approach to making series. Then a series like Big Bang Theory is only worth the time spent when they make the geeky science jokes; so it kinda refreshes your science memories. Then UK comedies are quite good and worth wasting some time e.g. Yes Minister which gives such an insight into public service in the UK, at the time.

All I have been trying to say is accept that watching series is a waste of time, then examine if what it brings to the table is worth spending time on. It might help productivity in your life to seriously consider breaking free from the gossipy-curiosity tendencies. Perhaps it might break us free from the chains (Salsalah) of series and allow for intimacy with time which will eventually trigger the long overdue Existential Crisis you need to give your life some meaning! We need a revolution of Consciousness!

[Perhaps we should discuss how to manage Existential Crises soon :)]

What is the Last Price?

What is the Last Price?

Alternatively: Wetin be de las price? [Skip to the next paragraph if this statement brings market memories]. This is a common phrase used in Nigerian market (the physical markets). It is an invitation to bargain. Every product has at least two “prices” in the market: its Price and its Last Price (others have Last Last Price and Final Last Price). Just some technical terms for experts in the art of market bargain. Other technical terms include Customer which is used to refer to the seller (to whom one displays loyalty) instead of the buyer, as in the conventional sense. For clarity, let the jargons be put aside and let us use the terms Buyer and Seller. The buyer asks the seller how much a thing costs, the seller mentions a “price”, then the buyer asks what is the Last Price, then the seller estimates and reduces from the Price. Now the tedious bargaining begins.

Wuse Market Abuja

Me, I am quite thrift in my spending. I know that because it is not common around my acquaintances. Thrift should not be confused with miserliness or bargaining prowess; thrift is more about being un-wasteful. I used to confuse thrift with bargaining prowess, thinking along the lines of: if I save money by not spending as much as I would have, then I must be reducing waste. According to that logic, it is waste if someone (the seller) gets my money! There goes a hint of the underlying problem with my logic; I will come back to that.

I used to be somewhat skillful in my bargaining ability. I recall this was pointed out to me by my mum (perhaps to encourage this discovered virtue) when I was (less than) 10 years old; after bargaining my way and purchasing a football officially priced at N250 for N150. Since then I wore the crown of bargaining, proudly. Eventually I started to become frustrated with the bargaining process, perhaps because of the mental gymnastics involved which usually leaves me frustrated even after getting a good price. If you get a really good price, the sellers leave you feeling that you have cheated them. I wasn’t comfortable with that, even in a game of wits, in which they are simply delivering their final blow by planting in me the seed of guilt. I would sometimes wonder if I had indeed cheated them.

The mental gymnastics involved in this activity is that you must change/adjust your world view in order to go through this unscathed. Your world view must believe/assume that all sellers are trying to cheat you; hence at the end of every transaction one party must be left feeling cheated (or pretending to feel cheated). More importantly, this leaves you frustrated upstairs, unless you have no better ideals than the priestly quoted, ludicrous and expediently accepted truth that: All humans are intrinsically selfish! Yuk! I am not claiming that people don’t ACT that way, because they do ACT that way, after all we act according to our beliefs. How did this skewed view of the world come to gain so much acceptance?

Well philosophers from ancient times have expressed ideas of the selfish individual. Adam smith (dubbed father of modern capitalism) created an elaborate theory based on that assumption; although experts on Adam Smith point that his theory provided for a correcting mechanism. Adam Smith’s popular Invisible Hand relies on such assumptions. However, I think the rendition of this world view that has affected us the most is that which was forged in the volcanic mountains of the WW2 (World War Two)! It was in this dark times that this world view was packaged so nicely with antique binding that it began to resemble the Qur’an and the Bible. This is Game Theory.

The idea at the heart of Game Theory has been around for millennia, its evolution to its present state has been so for centuries. What is typically referred to as Game Theory can be traced to the genius John von Neumann. Before the second world war, Neumann had set the theoretical (mathematical) basis of Game Theory. He was one of the think tanks involved in the war, on the side of USA; this was a time of high mistrust and suspicion in international affairs including economics. During the war, he adapted his theory to be used in social sciences as models representing the real world: economics, politics, and even bargaining! At the heart of Game Theory is that agents (e.g. buyer & seller, voters & politicians) are constantly in a state of competition with each other trying to maximize their individual advantages; hence the common phrases “Politicians just have selfish interest”, “Sellers will always try to cheat you”. Game theory is the science that give these popular beliefs the credentials of “Truths”.  Long story short (This post is getting long) an eloquent mathematical model of agents found its way into social sciences (Economics, Philosophy etc) which deals with humans. The human being presented by Game Theory is the competitive human who only cooperates as a compromise. What started as “assumptions” in a model has since left the confines of academia and taken the guise of “fact” in the real world. The more people believe it, the more they act it, and the more it appears true.

This state of the world did not settle well in my head, not because I had a better argument but it left bitter taste in my mind’s tongue. I realized people are on auto pilot, like bargain-seeking zombies, on their quest to get the best bargains that they do absurd things like: they would bargain for anything from sweets to houses if they could; they would spend hours bargaining when their time could be better spent; they would swear by their gods to convince their opponent; they would argue about prices not because they know the cost but because they assume whatever price they are told is extortion… I felt this was all psychotic. Seriously, I think it is psychosis!

Slowly coming out of my frustration with the nightmare that is bargaining, I had an idea: I would only bargain if something is “worth” bargaining for. At the same time I was going through another transformation: I disliked the idea of needing (or depending on) anything/anyone, except God that is. With the two ideas I deduced my own philosophy/attitude with regards to commercial bargaining. The philosophy addresses my concern for this pervasive psychosis that destabilizes spirit, and my appeal to lack of dependence. However I exist within a certain economic context and I am no way omnipotent. The premises to my philosophy follow.

First, I don’t need anything that is not necessary for my survival, which is most things. Second, even among the things I need, I could survive on the most basic of them. Thirdly, if one is to bargain, they should have a good idea of the cost, else don’t bargain. Fourthly, a seller is entitled to making reasonable profit, else what’s the point of serving you? Based on the third point, my attitude to bargaining depends on whether I know about the cost or not. Adam Smith (given his assumptions) argues that the price of stuff is determined by the Invisible Hand (one might think he is talking about God, he is not). I am more inclined to set my own price; I call it my Decisive Hand! With all this, my philosophy can summarized in two sentences:

If I know the price of a thing that is not crucial to my survival, and I would like to acquire it, I state a price I think is fair and purchase or walk away. Secondly, if I don’t know the price, my Decisive Hand decides on a price I am willing to pay, then ask for the price, if the price is lower than my own I pay, if not I mention my own, then purchase or walk away.

Each time I walk away, I remain conscious that it could be mistaken with a bluff, which is a common “tactic” in this war of bargain and profit. I make a point of clarifying to the sellers that this is neither a bluff nor done out of spite, it is just an a plan that didn’t work, an equation that was not solved, a relationship that did not work out (“it is not you, it is me”). I don’t expect them to understand it, and I am just articulating it for the first time perhaps on this blog, so I wouldn’t have given them the link to this blog. But I leave there feeling better about myself for having tried to explain it to them, even if they don’t get it.

I leave not victorious or cheated, but always with my spirit un-conflicted and no less a survivor. This is my Last Price.