If there’s one thing that Stoicism has taught me, it is that the good fight is not with the world, but yourself. Many of the books I read and observations I try to make on family are to get a better understanding of the ‘why’ behind my thinking. Among the many things that “Behave” gave me insights on was this, and an explanation for how siblings can be very different in terms of mindset and behaviour, despite inheriting not just ‘nature’ but sharing ‘nurture’ too.
‘Another dogma was that brains are pretty much wired up early in childhood – after all, by age two, brains are already about 85% of adult volume, but the development trajectory is much slower than that. …the final brain region to fully mature (in terms of synapse number, myelination, and metabolism) is the frontal cortex, not going fully online until the mid twenties.‘
“…the brain is heavily influenced by genes. But from birth through young adulthood, the part of the human brain that most defines us (frontal cortex) is less a product of the genes with which you started life than of what life has thrown at you. Because it is the last to mature, by definition the frontal cortex is the brain region least constrained by genes and most sculpted by experience. This must be so, to be the supremely complex social species that we are. Ironically, it seems that the genetic program of human brain development has evolved to, as much as possible, free the frontal cortex from genes.”
Brain Pickings has been one of my favourite websites for a long time, and thus, this book automatically went into the wishlist. But as with many good things, it took a while to get into the cart! This is not a book that one can (or should) categorise easily, but as a reader, what I got was an appreciation of the essence and texture of life, and its interconnectedness. The book, I’d say, is poetry delivered in prose. A good thing for people like me who cannot appreciate the former! I read the title -“Figuring”, both as exploration and understanding, as well as mathematics being the language of the universe, but I am guessing it’s the first that the author intended.
The narrative is guided by the lives of many people. Some of them easily known, and some others not famous enough, unfortunately and unfairly. The book begins with Johannes Kepler, who would “quarry the marble out of which classical physics would be sculpted”. The stargazer, writer of science fiction, whose North Star was the discovery of truth, irrespective of what society thought of it. Including an insight far ahead of time – “The difference between the fates of the sexes is not in the heavens but in the earthly construction of gender.”
Maybe the narrative was constructed with intellectual successors in mind too. And it’s probably through the years of sifting through content for the blog that the author found connections between the historical figures – events, mutual friends, pure chance, dates. And thus it is that we reach Maria Mitchell, “besotted with the splendour of the cosmos”, all of 12 years old, catching an eclipse, and beginning her journey towards becoming America’s first professional astronomer. She would hold Mary Somerville, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, and Caroline Herschel as examples of the era’s “few women of genius who have become the successful rivals of man in the paths they have chosen.” Ada Lovelace has a brief cameo here too.
In 1825, Margaret Fuller is fifteen, and writes that “I am determined on distinction”. In 1845, she would author “Woman in the Nineteenth Century” that “lit the Promethean fire of possibility for women”. Even as her intellectual life soared, there were very few highs in her personal life. Much like Emily Dickinson, whose hundreds of poems were “verses of unambiguous beauty that thrill and taunt with their ambiguous meaning”. Though she was not well-known during her lifetime, she is now regarded as one of America’s foremost and unique poets.
Harriet Hosmer started her battles against expectation and convention fairly early in life, but with that also came the awareness that “everyone and everything we love is eventually swept away”. And yet she gave humanity a distinct perspective of what is possible as an artist and a human being.
The last recipient of the intellectual torch (in the book) is Rachel Carson, a relatively more contemporary figure. In another show of narrative mastery, the author links Carson’s story to its beginning – Lise Meitner, a pioneer in nuclear physics, whose scientific discoveries would have malevolent applications. A turning point for science and humanity. As Rachel Carson would observe years later, “We still talk in terms of conquest. We still haven’t become mature enough to think of ourselves as a very tiny part of a vast and incredible universe.. We’re challenged, as mankind has never been challenged before, to prove our maturity and mastery – not of nature but of ourselves.” Rachel Carson showcased and ignited the questions and fights that have now become global environmental movements.
The book forces us to ask the essential and existential questions – what makes a good life, what does it mean to live one that positively impacts humanity? And to me, whether it is worth it. Meanwhile, to note that along with these personalities, there are also giants in the periphery, who are probably more popular – Ralph Waldo Emerson, Charles Darwin, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Walt Whitman, and so on.
As I wrote before, the book is difficult to categorise not just because of its narrative style and content, but also because of the multitude of themes it covers – feminism, Transcendentalism, queer relationships, the stars in the sky and the life on the ocean floor – all from the perspective of “the pale blue dot” and its sentient beings.
P.S. With 100 pages to go, I had a visceral experience of the transience of life – a heart attack! Such is life.
Oh well, since Gates doesn’t have a monopoly these days, I thought I’ll continue this from last year and the year before. Actually, it’s for a couple of reasons. One, I think there are underlying themes in my reading every year, which will be interesting to examine years later. And two, if someone chances upon these, they will hopefully be able to discover new books and themes for themselves. The shortlisting was tougher this year, because the list was slightly bigger, and the quality of books was also great. My long list from the 50 books I read this year was closer to 20, and I’ll mention them in the relevant places.
Before I get to how wonderfully interesting this book is, I have to say I am surprised it hasn’t been banned yet! It easily, and scientifically I would add, dismantles all of the Indigenous Aryans and Out of India Aryan migration theories that have been doing its rounds on not just WhatsApp but larger forms of media, and encouraged by the current powers that be!
Tony Joseph starts right from the beginning to answer the questions, “Who are we Indians? Where did we come from?” The beginning is about 65ooo years ago, when Homo sapiens decided to venture out of Africa, and subsequently entered the Indian subcontinent. Although if you ask an archaeologist, the answer would be 120000 years! They are referring to the first group of modern humans who left behind archaeological evidence. The 65000 comes from the geneticists who are talking of humans who left behind a lineage that is still around.
The author uses the metaphor of a pizza to show how we got here. The First Indians, from the previous paragraph, forms the base. The story of the next layer – the sauce- begins in the Levant (West Asia), where approximately 20000 years ago, hunter-gatherers were being stressed by the glacial period that turned many areas uninhabitable. Many centuries of experiments on gathering and processing food later, when plant and animal domestication began to see success, some Zagrosian (region of Iran) herders reached Balochistan, around 7000 BCE, mixed with First Indians and formed the basis of the Harappan Civilisation.
I don’t think we appreciate the Harappans enough. They were really advanced for their time, in their unique practices and outlook, across multiple facets of what we call civilisation. Public infrastructure, weight standardisation, jewellery and pottery, they excelled at many things. They were around for over 6000 years, created the Dravidian languages and were the ancestors of all Indians. There are some word examples that show the connection between Elamite – an extinct language spoken in a region that is part of present day Iran – and Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu. The occurrence of places ending with vali/oli in Western and Southern India is because of the Proto-Dravidian language connection as (some of) the Harappans started moving southwards when their civilisation collapsed. Fascinating stuff!
Back to the pizza. The Aryans were the “cheese” who arrived from the Steppe around 2000 BCE. It was the Aryans who brought in the Indo-European languages. They originated in the Kazakh Steppe and moved across Southern Central Asia and then South Asia. And yes, the earliest Vedas postdates the Harappan civilisation. So it’s not as if the Harappans were the Aryans! The present day Indian population is a product of the intermingling of two sets. ANI [Ancestral North Indians – made up of Harappans (First Indians + Zagros agriculturalists) + Steppe pastoralists] and ASI [Ancestral South Indians – Harappans + First Indians (south)] In addition we have toppings in the form of Austroasiatic and Tibeto-Burman language speakers as well as Greeks, Huns, Sakas, Parsis, Mughals etc.
There are three distinct areas of science that have contributed to our understanding (even if it is not complete) of the answers to the two questions. Archaeology, genetics and linguistics. They have their “little” differences, but collectively, they have provided substantial scientific proof. And now, after everything that happened from then until the present day, if we ask who is the best representation of Indians at this point, the answer is a tribal woman, because she carries the deepest rooted lineage. Adivasi (first inhabitant). How ironical given the way we treat them! Civilisation and progress!
A must-read if you are even remotely interested in history.
For a particular generation, Wet Wet Wet’s “Love is all around” from the soundtrack of “Four Weddings And A Funeral” is a special song. And thus, catching Andie MacDowell (yes yes, Sex, Lies, and Videotape too) in Maid was a pleasant surprise. She plays Paula, mother to Alex, played by her real-life daughter Margaret Qualley, and grandmother to Maddy, Alex’s daughter.
Paula is an artist, reasonably disconnected from reality. Probably her way of coping with the unpleasant things that happened earlier in her life. In Episode 3 (Sea Glass), we see her preparing for an art show. (Minor spoiler ahead) When Alex (who did a lot of heavy lifting literally and otherwise) drives her to the gallery, it turns out there is no show. Paula had completely misread some charitable comments made by the curator! She might have been a flavour at some point, but is now middling, at best.
At dinner on the same day, Paula and Alex squabble, with Paula delivering a low blow. But the next day, when Alex returns to her (temporary) home in the evening, she finds that Paula was there earlier, and had painted a wall mural for Maddy. Maddy gets all giggly and excited.
And all that was one part of the context. The second part is what I have been reading in ‘Lives of the Stoics‘, around the same time. ‘We naturally care what people think of us; we don’t want to seem too different, so we acquire the same tastes as everyone else. We accept what the crowd does so the crowd will accept us. But in doing this, we weaken ourselves. We compromise, often without knowing it; we allow ourselves to be bought – without even the benefit of getting paid for it.‘
I thought about it in the context of Paula’s exhibition vs mural. Exhibiting one’s expressions (art) to a crowd which is seemingly interested in such things vs delighting her daughter and grand-daughter. I understand it does not always have to be an either-or, but I think we subconsciously optimise for one or the other, and neurons wire together etc.
As I have written before, when the ‘why’ of creation changes, so does the ‘what’. And there are many slices to this. For instance, doing something because it gives me joy vs doing it for validation from ‘Instafam’ or Tweeps. And not just validation, but validation at scale – ‘We have created a world where we reward the manipulation of quantities more than the appreciation of qualities.’ ~ Roger L. Martin. There is another slice, more on that later.
For some time now, I have consciously tried to avoid this direction, and instead, focused on a different path. From experience, it is a matter of training one’s mind, and being mindful of the distractions. Easier said than done, especially when a staged presence has a direct implication on things like employability. But possible.
‘For me, success is not a public thing. It’s a private thing. It’s when you have fewer and fewer regrets.‘ ~ Toni Morrison. For instance, something I am grateful for is the ability to make people laugh. Not a prepared standup act, but something on the spur of the moment, with a bunch of contexts built in. These days, when I am able to make D laugh, I consider the day a success. I also find the opportunity to make friends and colleagues smile rewarding.
Not that I don’t share random wordplay on Twitter, or don’t find validation pleasing, but I am increasingly becoming ok not getting it either. Just being able to do it makes me happy. ‘To have but not want, to enjoy without needing.’
And then there is the other slice. The work on this continues, but that’s another post.
Reading Lives of the Stoics and realising that we went from 'living a good life' to 'making sure everyone knows I'm living a good life' pretty fast. Yes, that's judgment and yes, I'm indicted too.
