O Penury and the surplus affluence (Final Part) ⇒ Kirno Sohochari

Readers, in my previous post [see: O Penury and the surplus affluence (First Part)] I tried to flare that affluence or penury is not a natural perception. Our self-made progress to the civilization once created this comparison in human society. Penury and affluence do not contain a single feature what we can consider natural; above all, they cannot talk anything about the love and hate relation of a human with nature. Our hardship struggle, adjustment and adaptation in nature, and finally the separation happened lack of any perception about the penury or affluence. Struggle for survival in nature was hard in the remotest past of human society; even now, a few among who yet carried nature in their life, it is not relaxant for them to lead the life as a woodlander or something like that.

Nature consistently demands hardship effort to its residence. This abide is not a comfort zone for relaxation and dissipation. Food hunting and its preservation not a cozy matter in nature; feeding, breeding, and fostering is as well a tough task there; and fighting against the natural calamities with great resistance or proved the adaptation capacity in case of a sudden mutation, is perhaps not easeful for any creation. Our journey as a self-defined human being was very adverse at the primitive stage of evolution. The prototype of nature evolving lifestyle maintained a steady state regarding the risk of uncertain calamity and sudden mutation. Nature is steady to its routine behavior, very consistent to the continual adjustment, and impartial to the regular and sudden mutational changes. The challenge for every creation is lying there, and that is, creations are bound to show their resistance against the hostile action of nature if they have had the desire to sustain in a nature-oriented livelihood.

O Penury_05_2

… We were not different to the savage. Our life is not comfortable compared to the sylvan, nor do we live happiest and coziest life than a woodlander. Nature is not heaven and our self-declared heaven is same too… No system can change the system if we failed to change our perception about life, social class, property utilization and distribution, labor division and a lot other self-made hegemonic wording.
… … …

Yes. Nature is not heaven when we think about the rigorous interdependency chain and automated rules of a nature-evolved life; on the opposite, it is a usual state for them who already adapted and used to carry the burden. We have to remember this that, life in nature is a game of the maximum utilization of interrelated natural objects and resources. We are responsible for following the precondition that, —living in nature is a marathon race of adjustment and adaptation, without any expectation of freedom, random behavior or the self-made desire of life.

Nature is sovereignty; it is sovereign to the pace that, a nature-living creation is obliged to follow the organic patterns of self-defense and self-survival. Life is scheduled there to maintain the organic rules of nature. The association patterns of survivors in nature-oriented lifestyle, their labor division and responsibilities, food hunting processes, lovemaking and breeding, inbuilt features of dominance, above all, all these actions are faithful to follow the organic principles of life. Nature is essentially organic, and intellect of any creation tried to prove its capacity by following the organic principle of nature. We cannot entail our self-made rules to nature standard livelihood; even we cannot set any law or moral code to denote the inbuilt natural habits, regarding our self-built interpretation of civilization, humanity, enlightenment, progress, and ethical dictum.

Perhaps we cannot claim that we are more enlightened and civilized rather than the woodlander, who lived a completely natural life out of the manmade system and so on. So far nature has existed the woodlander will able to exist by using his nature gifted instinct and intellect. We can consider him a savage, can define him a sylvan or interpret his lifestyle incompetent regarding our eye-catching progress in civilization; despite this, we cannot impose our settled standard to his lifestyle. Logically we cannot do this, yes, cannot force him to change his perception or values which he thinks, is well fitted for him to carry the nature standard livelihood.

O Penury_04_2

… The aborigines were just a mere part of this forced annihilation in remote past, aftermath and nowadays the pressure of enlightenment appeared as a threat to the occupied locality.
… … …

No, we have no right to interpret the woodlander’s life in light of our civilized perception; we don’t have a right, forcing him to adjust the lifestyle we are used to carrying on; to think that he is a sylvan and it’s our moral responsibility to civilized him through our self-declared modernity, so that he looked alike us. Perhaps we cannot do that, because, yonder man stayed far above the definition and rhetoric of civilized modernity; he stayed in the autonomous civilization and stayed there without any necessity of practicing the bunch of systematic ambiguities we have made for us and habituated us to lived on it. No, we just cannot do this, pushed our living standard to the others without their self-compliance, albeit we are implying this since from the dawn of human civilization.

No, even we cannot justify the living nature of any nature-living human according to the entailed standard of modern civilization; cannot define them uneducated, unenlightened and unethical just consider the moral standard of civilized human, as Immanuel Kant once (later he gradually changed his views about Non-European race, aborigines, human’s attitude to the animal and violation of nature’s law etc. and so on) treated the aborigines and he exiled them rudely to the human’s definition. Kant marked them incompetent for the features of a civilized human; he thought they are not exigent for today’s world; their belonging or extinction doesn’t matter anything serious to the civilization or nature.

Kant treated aborigines immaterial because of their conventional lifestyle; he considered it meaningless to cogitate that this lifestyle is incapable to enlightened human race. He believed aborigines are inept to elevate them to such height which a civilized human achieved, which he achieved by separation, by separating himself to the nature-depended slavery. Human life was ethically transcendental to Immanuel Kant. He tried to say that, enlightenment is the journey of a human soul from the premature to the mature stage, it could never sustain if the human race is abortive to elevate them to the transcendental height to achieve ethical humanism and peace.

Ethically enlightened Humanism is the extreme objective of human, it helped them to achieve the maturity and make them unique among all other creations of the world. Kant’s devotion for enlightenment manifested human being as a container of high profiled morality, who can enlighten himself by practicing the rational thinking; he can climb the transcendental-peak through his super intellect of rationalizing the relation between known and unknown reality, visible and non-visible objects, conventional and convertible relation between all living and non-living existence in the universe. The great philosopher of Königsberg quested the meaning of the highest goodness against the diversified badness, where he marked the nature dependency as a blockade for human enlightenment, because, it prevents the self-dependent progress of human species.

O Penury_12

… Kant once avoided his own nature-oriented root and tried to discover himself in the realm of upgraded adult and conscious being, but he missed the point, and that is, our so-called enlightenment does not give us any extra comfort for living a better life with equality, harmony, justice, and peace.
… … …

Aborigines are sadly primitive in Kant’s context; yes, he is not wrong that, the primitive groups are insentient about the self-made capacity of human, albeit yonder capacity can make a man forward to realize the relation between life and nature, and obviously, it helped him to comprehend the relation of Creator and Creation in the world. We arrived here as a blank slate and filled the slate through our performance and perception, and that is we called enlightenment of human, where a human being lifted him to the adult state, which considered a moral standard for him.

Yes, if we zoom to the manmade civilization we can say, enlightenment makes a man attractive, polyphonic and symbolic amid all other creations. Aborigines stayed far behind to the Kant’s wording and mind-paradigm; this group stayed in nature just like a curious kid, in where he is careless or innocent to the diversified perception of his fellow brothers; he scratched his blank slate as nature permitted him to do so far. It was difficult for Immanuel Kant to comprehend and accept such kind of ignorance at that time; he exiled them to his presupposed ethical height and forecasted their extinction as inevitable. 

It is not logical to blow-up Kant’s feeling or perception by calling it gibberish; he is quite reasonable to his points of thought. His wording echoed the mental state of a manmade system when Homo sapiens started their memorable expedition by taking a migration to the African Savannah. Our ancestors were bound to migrate because of the upcoming food crisis in Savannah, which was happening there due to the rapid fall down of sea level. This migration was not a separation with nature; rather it was the survival essentiality of the human race and was belonging until the arrival moment of a new era; this new era provoked the human race fixing their relation pattern of nature and human, it insisted them later to make a complete definition of the manmade civilization. 

The new era appeared in the scene with nature-separated elements and introduced a new perception of possession, eviction, kingship, personal property right and labor-division in a society. It was the pre-moment of a manmade realm that we later named human civilization. Yonder separation was the pre-tread of various isms we implied later to the civilization. We tested the self-made progress in several times under the systematic implementation of feudalism, imperialism, capitalism, socialism and even the virulent nationalism and now the terrorism to achieve the transcendental progress. 

O Penury_13

… Michel Foucault once questioned Kant’s definition of enlightenment in his counter article. He depicted the dark edges of enlightenment in medieval Europe and tried to clear that, knowledge is a bad ethical manipulator of which we called basic, original, primordial, and obviously, a divider between powerful and powerless, vocal and voiceless, dominate and dominant, state and people.
… … …

The evolution of mentioned isms mirrors a historical fact that, though human race was associated with nature standard living in the remotest past but it was not sufficient to stick them in nature; their developed intellect provoked them to invent a new system of life that is sustainable and nature independent. New era tried to declare the fact that, from now human will utilize nature according to the new principles of life, so time is coming to say goodbye to the savagery; Immanuel Kant’s transcendental cloak echoed the utility principles, where the moral-coded modern human always tried to pluck the savagery, to think it humiliating for transcendent progress.

The advance expedition of human started first for survival, but in later the consequences turned to the dramatic separation and dominance. Making of self-made civilization insisted human race to play the occupiers rule. They provoked them to the occupation, instead of harmony and compatibility. “Survival of the fittest” converted to the “Survival of the dominant who is capable of dictating the entire nature standard living, even he is capable dominating his group members or genus”.

We have to remember this, a later expedition of migrated human has done by eviction, possession, mass murder and subjugation of the unchanged aborigines and affected the nature-oriented locality even; these people are not aborigines but started living in a locality from the hundreds or a thousand years before. The new shape of the expedition was careless about the fact and not gracious to exemptions the aborigines and the civilization-oriented locality even.

We should again remember the fact that, our expedition from African Savannah was truly a necessity and have done according to the natural rules of struggle or adaptation. The first phase expedition followed the nomadic features of life and so on; but the later phases mainly happened to possess the lands, natural resources, and properties of aborigines or local people for dominance.

Aggression occurred in whole over the world to serve the greedy purpose of possession, looting, domination and established a new king-hood in the occupied locus. The ancient and medieval period was entirely an expedition of possession throughout the brutal war, massive destruction of properties, forced migration, ethnic cleansing, and mass killing of a local resident. We should remember that the same thing yet continued in different shape, perception, and context.

O Penury_10_2

… Manmade definition of less developed or developing nation is not different in that context, because, defined people not defined their identity as a poor or less developed, they just tried to survive utilizing the resources they have.
… … …

Expedition increase knowledge, it develops new technology and a new perception of life and nature, which played an important role in sharing and disseminating the upgraded information. In that sense expedition is an invention, an effective tool to ensure progress, reformation, renaissance and so on; and no doubt about that, it’s an enlightenment of moral standard by practicing the new perception of nature, humanity etc. On the other hand, an expedition is a curse, where it helped one appeared as an occupier in excuse of progress and enlightenment; reversely it helped the others to see them occupied by the entailed enlightenment, they see them exploited and tortured due to the later consequences of imposed enlightenment.

The aborigines were just a mere part of this forced annihilation in remote past, aftermath and nowadays the pressure of enlightenment appeared as a threat to the occupied locality. The affected members of any locality is an integral part of a civilization, habituated to stay within the manmade decor, but occupiers treated them backward, marginal or less advanced, as like they used to treat the aborigines. Mentioned people are consistently entitled as penury-affected; the enlightened economists, policy-makers, multinationals, pressure groups, civil society, political and economic super powers, and even their local minions diagrammed them in a below poverty line; and this thing happened without any self-consent of the affected.

It is vital to remember that, aborigines never entitled them a savage or sylvan; they were careless to the definition of penury and affluence in the past, and still in today, but it doesn’t mean they are incapable of defining them; no, they can define their self-identity through nature’s eyes, and that is their lifeline. The struggle or happiness of aborigines related to the availability and utilization of natural resources; and they tried to utilize it at best by using their nature-gifted intellects.

O Penury_14

… On the other hand, an expedition is a curse, where it helped one appeared as an occupier in excuse of progress and enlightenment; reversely it helped the others to see them occupied by the entailed enlightenment, they see them exploited and tortured due to the later consequences of imposed enlightenment.
… … …

Manmade definition of less developed or developing nation is not different in that context, because, defined people not defined their identity as a poor or less developed, they just tried to survive utilizing the resources they have. Yes, they are able to express their happiness and struggle, can express their own perception of life and so on, but the implied enlightenment pushed them to the reality that keeping them poor. Because, distribution of wealth is unequal there, labor-division classified there by the wage division, purchasing capacity is depended on the earning capacity of an individual one, and money-flow always circulated amid the uneven stage of owner and employer. This reality perhaps the main reason for applying the contradictory definition of human in a society which is divided by class and inequality; in where the upper and middle class appeared as affluent and rest is circulated among the created absurdities of poverty elevation or reduction.

It is embarrassing for the people who perhaps once lived a nature oriented hardship life without any sense of penury and affluence, but now the same people are obliged to adjust them with the unequal lifestyle. The distribution of wealth in that lifestyle depended on the purchasing capacity of an individual person, where it always remains unequal due to the mechanism of wealth-management and distribution. Really, it is a humiliation for the people who never treated themselves poor or affluent before to be a member of the manmade economic and political system; but now they obliged to see their presence in below poverty line! The enlightened economists and policy-makers marked them as exploited by the exploiters, and they marked it to seated in an air-conditioned seminar hall; multinational organizations and super powers defined the people affected by penury and aided them for multiple interest or reasons. They assisted, so that, the entitled penury-affected people can realize that no option is remaining to back or living a nature oriented life in human’s world; so time is imminent to destroy the “self”, just for the sake of survival in a manmade system.

Above reality obliged the human society to interpret their self-made definitions through imagery wording; so that they can free them to the ethical burdens. Immanuel Kant’s transcendental morality is the desperate exertion of uplifting a man to the such height, so he can repair his fault line by practicing the moral codes of modern life, so a man can save and separate himself to the habit of savagery, so that none can say, his behavior reflects the primitiveness and he looked like the sylvan.

Our self-made wording and thought process constantly tried to hide the fact that we are the successor of woodlander, and maybe an Ape-man shared the same biological root with us despite our later differences in lifestyle, intellect and so on. Enlightenment and moral standard is a transcendental solace for us to forget the root that, we are not sacred as we tried to prove.

O Penury_09

… Manmade definition of less developed or developing nation is not different in that context, because, defined people not defined their identity as a poor or less developed, they just tried to survive utilizing the resources they have.
… … ….

Kant avoided his own nature-oriented root and tried to discover himself in the realm of upgraded adult and conscious being, but he missed the point, and that is, our so-called enlightenment does not give us any extra comfort for living a better life with equality, harmony, justice, and peace. Life is equally strenuous and insecure in both aspects. It was not easeful in nature at remote past, and even harder now today in a manmade civilization. We make it more conflicting and pretentious rather than the features of natural struggle.

Nature’s features are simple, here we don’t feel any necessity to define our scheduled life; not feel any urgency to signifying our presence as unique and dominant; don’t care to interpret our need through the systematic laws of division and distribution; here we just tried hard to utilize the resources according to the automation of nature. Yes, we carried the life in nature with aloofness. We are being aloof to the feeling of happiness and misery, penury or affluence; it is not bad if we compared it to the thousand years enlightened ascension of human to the self-made civilization. Kant implied extra values to the ascension by calling it enlightenment of human mind and an elevation to the adult stage from the underage.

Michel Foucault once questioned Kant’s definition of enlightenment in his counter article. He depicted the dark edges of enlightenment in medieval Europe and tried to clear that, knowledge is a bad ethical manipulator of which we called basic, original, primordial, and obviously, a divider between powerful and powerless, vocal and voiceless, dominate and dominant, state and people. Foucault touched the ground that, enlightenment helped human to elevate his status to be adult and reversely drowned his solo identity into the ethical humiliation and pollution; in where he sees himself exploited by the exploiters of society, battling against all imposed order and discipline, and waiting for the rescuer who can rescue him to the ethical despair. Anyway, there is none except He, who can be a rescuer for him.

We were not different to the savage. Our life is not comfortable compared to the sylvan, nor do we live happiest and coziest life than a woodlander. Nature is not heaven and our self-declared heaven is same too. This realization is realistic, though we evenly tried to ignore it by showing our enlightened progress even more. Affluence or poverty is the impact of this pretentious consideration. No system can change the system if we failed to change our perception about life, social class, property utilization and distribution, labor division and a lot other self-made hegemonic wording.

O Penury_06_2

… Nature is steady to its routine behavior, very consistent to the continual adjustment, and impartial to the regular and sudden mutational changes. The challenge for every creation is lying there, and that is, creations are bound to show their resistance against the hostile action of nature if they have had the desire to sustain in a nature-oriented livelihood.
… … …

We need some deep poetic views, needed to look in deep as a philosopher does, and indeed spread our canvas to the grand landscape of natural life to define our position in there. We needed this to realize the rootless journey and backing it again to the root so we can live a balanced life, before closing the chapter of this planetary life. Sometimes a poet or an artist guided us better in such type of ensemble. SM Sultan, the resident of penury-affected Bangladesh was maybe one of the rare. He ignored the system which makes a man (and be the nation) indebted to carry the false perception of humanity, enlightenment and so on.

Sultan_13

… Sultan wanted to make this journey possible before his death, so that the future of Bangladesh can feel the Mother Nature in their heart, and able to perceive the message that, —penury does not exist in nature; it existed in our mind and tried to narrow the life in beggary; just to serve the heinous interest of some greedy system makers.
… … …

He depicted the narrative of unification with all nature living objects in his grand canvas, where nature and human embraced each other to enjoy the eternal beauty of life by forgetting the intentional separation. In Indian philosophical context, nature represents the eternal assimilation of man and woman, where femininity (Prakriti) and masculinity (Purush) are identical and rapt to each other for creating the unification of all nature living objects. Sultan’s canvas painted the unification in the landscape of rural Bengal.

His lifestyle and artistry take off to the reverse ground. He was the son of a farmer, used to travel the Indian continent like a nomad, and later lived a nature-oriented life in his birthing place Narail to remind us that, a root cannot be cutting off and we have to back our origin, despite the imposed pressure of so-called modernity and so on. Sultan helped us to think our relation with Mother Nature, which is always vigorous with its femininity by carrying the masculinity within its womb. His painted canvas kicked out the perception of penury and so on and waving in life with natural affluence.

Sultan_2

… Despite this, his impressionist approach elevated the whole climate onto the universal height; Sultan’s figurative masculinity is Uninational despite the historical detailing of an exploited nationality; his nature living man and woman are Universatile in spite of their hardship struggle of adjustment to the implied modernity. This approach makes Sultan’s contents truly global; any citizen of the world can enjoy the vigorous beauty to comprehend the universal messages of his artworks.
… … …

Sultan’s artwork represents a healthy, industrious, harmonious, and vigorous masculinity; man and woman both carried the masculinity in their body biology, they celebrated it to enjoy the industrious passion of life altogether; and where nature and human are identical to the autonomous trading of life. He helped us to realize, a nature-evolved human can never be born with any sealed identity of penury and so on. Sultan tried to clear that, it is the system and the perception that pushed a man to take this identity as indelible fate for his life; which motivated him to consider penury is inevitable for him; yonder man then see himself depended on the air-conditioned statesman of government or the developing partners for his salvation; albeit the state machinery is disabled to rescue him!

SM Sultan’s gender-impartial masculinity inspired us to fight against the imposed system which tried to manipulate the natural feeling of human that, he is born here to utilize the nature with vigorous hardworking and doing it with togetherness. His figurative characters excited us to remember that, we have to fight against the all forced calamities of the manmade system that tried to exploit and robbed our nature-gifted physical strength, mental simplicity, even our language, ritual, culture and even the primordial equality, dependency and togetherness, which we always used to protect our commune to the calamities.

Sultan_5

… SM Sultan’s gender-impartial masculinity inspired us to fight against the imposed system which tried to manipulate the natural feeling of human that, he is born here to utilize the nature with vigorous hardworking and doing it with togetherness.
… … …

The painter provoked us to feel the omnivorous masculinity of rural life throughout the prehistoric features. Yes, rural life is organic and healthy, filled with the rigorous passion of breadwinning battle; it is yet filled by the hardship effort of cultivation, fishing, and lot other festive schedules; labor division of man and woman serve the equal purpose in rural life, where people worked together to serve the commune’s interest. Sultan kicked out the manmade perception of poverty to his canvas; his characters are the poorest members of Bangladeshi society; they lived in a village and critically analyzed by the economists, multinationals, development partners and the government’s statesman as well; where they symbolized as penury-affected and marginal population compare to the privileged. Sultan just ignored all this symbolized rhetoric and converted the poorest members of rural Bengal as healthy, industrious, and vigorous to rob their primordial nature living identity as a resident of Bangladesh.

His artwork reflected the precolonial and postcolonial life in Bangladesh; in where the painted canvas strongly represents the seasonal changes, harvesting season, fishing, battling for the possession of new Chor (a new sandy land raising to the water level of a river or sea), festivals, and lot other rituals of rural Bengal. Despite this, his impressionist approach elevated the whole climate onto the universal height; Sultan’s figurative masculinity is Uninational despite the historical detailing of an exploited nationality; his nature living man and woman are Universatile in spite of their hardship struggle of adjustment to the implied modernity. This approach makes Sultan’s contents truly global; any citizen of the world can enjoy the vigorous beauty to comprehend the universal messages of his artworks.

Sultan_7

… Sultan’s artwork represents a healthy, industrious, harmonious, and vigorous masculinity; man and woman both carried the masculinity in their body biology, they celebrated it to enjoy the industrious passion of life altogether; and where nature and human are identical to the autonomous trading of life.
… … …

Sultan perhaps invited us to say that, life is the nickname of such dream where our inner soul feels the unification to all nature living objects and we are living amid them with love and passion. His life was the example of his dream, yes, Sultan lived a life what he believed fitted for him to live. He lived with the Chitra River, with his pet animals and birds, with the trees, with flute, and praising the eternal beauty of creation with Baul Poet Bijoy Sarker. Yes, he lived a life that he dreams to live on, as he always dreams to build a Noah’s Ark, in where all creatures will live with unification and togetherness.

SM Sultan really made his Noah’s ark for the little children of Bangladesh. The objective of the construction was to make a journey by boat with children; so that they can see the beauty of Bangladesh through their innocence. Sultan wanted to make this journey possible before his death, so that the future of Bangladesh can feel the Mother Nature in their heart, and able to perceive the message that, —penury does not exist in nature; it existed in our mind and tried to narrow the life in beggary; just to serve the heinous interest of some greedy system makers.

SM Sultan (1923-1994)

… His figurative characters excited us to remember that, we have to fight against the all forced calamities of the manmade system that tried to exploit and robbed our nature-gifted physical strength, mental simplicity, even our language, ritual, culture and even the primordial equality, dependency and togetherness, which we always used to protect our commune to the calamities.
… … …

Readers, that’s the perception we hardly needed if we want to pull out from us to the cage of systematic rape and murder of the human soul. Sultan’s visionary canvas once real in the remotest past and hopefully we needed a strong universal unification to back it again.

Painting Source of SM Sultan: SM Sultan Artworks: Bengal Foundation Art Gallery

Sultan_0

… We need some deep poetic views, needed to look in deep as a philosopher does, and indeed spread our canvas to the grand landscape of natural life to define our position in there…

Sultan_0_1

Photo Credit: izquotes: Oscar Wilde; Poverty photography: Pinterest; The ecologist: aboriginal people; Bobbi-Lee Hille: Stunning photos of aboriginals; IPP: Australian Aboriginal Photos from European Collection; Art of creative photography: Precious Moment; Photo: Pranlal Patel; Natural beauty of Bangladesh: Pinterest; tourism Bangladesh: Villages of Bangladesh; exploration: First Landing of Columbas;
Advertisements