I am thinking things in a manner quite dense, in a way that can not be written in hurried posts. Most of the times, I refrain from posting things unless I have found an entry point into a discussion. You form opinions on things all the time, but hold them back for the lack of a "proof" or an instance strong enough to validate your theoretical analysis of it. Views on the society, family, individuals, education, behaviours, disciplines, and so on build up all the time in the head. A critical mind takes enough time to probe these opinions carefully such that they can be defended to the challenges that can be directly or distantly anticipated. Much time then goes into developing an argument to fend the allegations rather than working up towards building your own theory.
Manifestoes, unlike theories, have the liberty to be ruthless. They donot have the burden of being politically correct. They themselves chart a new politics. Manifestoes are often clear stances that people take on things, and are irreverent towards balancing out things. It is not the intent of manifestoes to keep everyone happy. Theories on the other hand, must work in multiple, or ambitiously, every context. Theories and manifestoes both give rise to each other. Nevertheless, the real world keeps theories within bounds, in a sort of confinement - making it realize its own limits. Manifestoes are often products of gut feeling and brought out with an air of assertion, where it assumes indifference to other critical discourses that may try to poke holes in their intent.
From my above understanding, I am not a person who perhaps seems to attempt a manifesto. I am not necessarily assertive, or affirmative enough to force down a singular way of doing things. Being a skeptic, a person who not only doubts everyone, but even the self all the time, I can hardly adopt the mode of proposing ideas in the manner of manifestoes. I am a theorist - in disposition as well as training. I have many theoretical ideas waiting to find their archives -- as my advisor at Yale would often say. "Some people come to the program [MED] with an identified archive which they try to theorise, while others come with theoretical ideas and find material to substantiate them, eventually making their own archives." I clearly fell in the category of the latter.
It is thus that I began to maintain a 'Book of Ideas'. My book of ideas contains formulations of the world that may be ill-informed. There are times when I have felt wise about holding release of a thought until the time many other dimensions of a situation / person / object /activity is revealed to me in an unexpected manner. There are other times when I have cringed for not being affirmative enough to present my ideas strongly for the insecurity of the lack of information. What seems to shape my skepticism is this perceived sense of ill-information. In this line of thought, it may not be wise to write anything at all until you have almost lived your entire life. Is there any way of understanding life, and aspects of life that you want to decipher while you are still living? Any theory thus, is always in evolution, for it is written as "in process".
What shall be then, a skeptic's diary? What form does skepticism take in language? A skeptic poses questions, hardly answers. At once, it seems utterly paradoxical for a skeptic to present his/her ideas - because on the one hand they are are quite unsure, and thus also incomplete. Incomplete and unsure ideas are always discarded by others. In modern culture, incompleteness does not hold much value. I think that manifestoes are forms of incomplete theories. Unsure incomplete theories which are hardened with a tact of indifference and defensive affirmation. Can manifestoes then be looked at with a skeptic eye? Or should a skeptic be writing manifestoes in order to escape being crumbled under criticism?
A blog is a soft space for such discussion to be voiced. However, many a times on reading my earlier posts, I have found some writings to be extremely potent. Yet, they never gain the status of seriousness because after all, they are on a blog - moreso a personal blog that is perhaps merely impressionistic? Such considerations bring us to question the agency of a personal blog. In recent times, we have seen enough examples of instrumental action channeled through online media portals. It may be worthwhile to understand how seriously do people take writings on blogs? In the course of my writing, I realised the title and content of this blog raises these questions quite succinctly. 'Dagagiri' (you may read about its etymology through the link on the sidebar) almost announces its content as a gentle manifesto. 'A gentle manifesto' sounds comforting, bringing in measured assertion with a pinch of self-skepticism.
In this spirit, I shall find time to note down some thoughts over coming time...perhaps...if they remain in my head long enough.
