The Insidious Spectrumization of Autism and the Long-Awaited Flowering of Bihemispherical Excellence

The "spectrumization" of autism has been an insidious, worthless, harmful movement from the start. I always identify with "signs of undiagnosed autism" mentioned in posts / videos about the topic, but I categorically refuse to call myself autistic, because I have seen someone with severe autism, and I consider it an insult to them to call myself autistic for being slightly noncomformist.

That's all most of these new-age "autists" are - noncomformist. You can become comfortable with that. You can become your own person. But don't invent nonsensical labels that are insulting to people who actually suffer because of autism. I would probably rank fairly high on the "spectrum" of autism, but that doesn't mean anything to me, because this "spectrum" doesn't mean anything to me.

Usually, these "signs of undiagnosed autism" are essentially signs of self-awareness. I don't wanna go into conspiracy theory territory, but this may or may not be why autism in particular has been targeted for "spectrumization", rather than depression, anxiety, gender dysphoria, suicidality, or other equally prevalent mental conditions - locking up self-awareness behind labels is more useful to the system than with the other conditions.

There's nothing stopping us from inventing an artificial "injury spectrum" that runs from stubbing your toe / getting a paper cut all the way to quadriplegia / losing limbs. We could come up with this spectrum right now, and the DSM could include it in their next edition, because it would be supported by ScienceTM in the same way that the autism spectrum is. But that wouldn't change the fact that someone with a paper cut is not "injured" in the same way as someone who has lost both legs is "injured", regardless of the fact that they both fall on the same artificial, imaginary "spectrum" of injury.

Just like it is usually the same people who cling to ScienceTM that believe women must be portrayed as perfect little angels who can do no wrong, the same people who shout the loudest about the autism "spectrum" and make "awareness videos" about the same are usually the ones who also shout the loudest about economic disparity among social classes. "Eat the Rich" and "Autism Awareness" are more often than not found on the same social media pages or clusters.

Why, then, do these people not think of poverty and wealth as a "spectrum"? Why is a jobless, homeless person fundamentally different from billionaires, when they both fall on the same "wealth spectrum"?

Why are "hateful divisive populists" and "helpless endangered minorities" not perceived as falling on the same "power spectrum"?

Why are politically powerful male billionaires and downtrodden, blameless female victims of domestic abuse not on the same "agency spectrum"?

(Keep in mind that I am not the one saying that these two are fundamentally different; it is the same people who claim that being slightly awkward around people is the same "autism" that renders others incapable of communication with another human being altogether. It is the same people who build up a social media presence and socioeconomic clout on the back of their "autism" and "AuDHD" labels that claim that the two poles in the above examples are fundamentally different and must be treated as such.)

Could it be because it is not politically convenient to think of other parameters in terms of a spectrum, but it is profitable to spectrumize autism?

This is why, despite mocking and criticizing the modern Left all day long, I firmly remain an apolitical. It would be easy to criticize "The Left" for this "selective spectrumization", if you will, but it goes deeper than that. This is not about which banner is being flown by who. This is more about the fundamental structures of order and chaos that govern human behavior.

I don't "hate the left wing", in the same way that I don't "love the right wing".

To irrevocably identify with one side of a necessarily binary proposition is akin to cutting off your arm and leg on one side because having both would somehow be a betrayal to "your side". If you eat with your right hand, you better be using your left hand for washing the last traces of that same food off your butthole. It is not advisable to use the same hand when eating and when shitting.

The important thing is to trust the bihemispherical activity in our very human brain. In many ways, the activities of the two hemispheres of the human brain (broadly) correspond to the values and ideals of the political left and right. The logical, analytical, factual left hemisphere corresponds broadly to the right wing, while the creative, intuitive, emotional, imaginative right hemisphere roughly corresponds to the left wing. I cannot emphasize enough that this is a broad, generic comparison, and I make no claim that it will hold up in every particular.

In the past, we have had brainless jocks rule the world, and we have had spineless nerds rule the world. Perhaps it's now time for the flowering of the bihemispherical man - the jock who can read, and the nerd who can bench press; the poet who can fight, and the warrior who fights for love, not hate.

Hanuman and Ganapati are examples of this selfsame bihemispherical excellence from the Hindu faith. In fact it is probable that Hanuman and Ganapati were conceptualized as they were precisely in order to emphasize the importance of bihemispherical excellence for future generations.

We tend to know about the bodybuilder Hanuman, but Hanuman is so much more than the ubiquitous photo frame in gymnasiums. In addition to being frighteningly strong, Hanuman is also said to be the highest among the intelligent (बुद्धिमतां वरिष्ठम्), as per Hindu scriptures. In addition to being smart and capable, he is also the exemplar of devotion, the ideal devotee. Even more than being Lord Ram's military general, he is his humble servant. He is not only well-trained in the martial arts, but is also a singer and poet par excellence. He is not drunk on his magnificent power, but perfectly in control of his physical body (जितेंद्रिय). He is eager not just to lay enemies to waste for Ram, but also to praise and glorify Ram through emotive, evocative, devotion-filled keertan (religious singing). He is not just a destroyer of evil, but also an able upholder of the good. He has not only placed Ram on his shoulders, but installed Him in his heart of hearts. Ram, for Hanuman, is not a mere worldly concern; He is the core of his very being.

Exactly the opposite fate has befallen Ganapati. While the famous elephant-headed god is, in actuality, the commander of Shiva's diverse and fierce forces and son of the war-goddess Chandi (a manifestation of Parvati) herself, we are loath to look past his pleasing, erudite, sophisticated persona as the god of the arts and sciences. He is not just the remover of peril (विघ्नहर्ता), but the knower and master of peril (विघ्नेश्वर). He doesn't just keep his devotees safe from danger, but enables them to see the peril for what it is, to understand its nature, and to derive useful lessons for future progress from it. In this way, he is a willing and able safeguard against chaos and peril, not the idle, languid, almost Bohemian dreamer and artist that we have made him out to be.

Along with the modak, Ganapati also holds his battle axe in his hands. While one of his hands is raised in the abhay mudra (the stance of fearlessness), granting courage to his devotees, another holds the ankusha, which stops the errant mind from wandering off into the inutile, unwholesome reaches of human consciousness.

Similarly, the mighty, all-powerful arms of Hanuman are forever prostrated before the majesty of Lord Rama. The tumult of Ram's righteous war and the melody of the soulful praise of Ram are equally pleasing to this great lord of simians.

The creative, intuitive right brain and the logical, analytical left brain may prove to be incapable of handling real-life adversities on their own, but together, they are unstoppable. Stories from Hindu scriptures show a clear trend that whenever the logical, analytical left brain has divorced itself from the devotion / faith of the right brain, disaster has ensued. Perhaps this is why the Hindu tradition exalts Ganesh and Hanuman above all else, as a symbol of what happens when the right and left halves of the brain, physically and metaphorically, work together towards a common objective. Perhaps this is why the future belongs to the complete, bihemispherical Hanuman and Ganesha, who are not "one of the two", but both, and more.

Tanmay Viraj Tikekar

25/01/2015

Aligning Freedom with Growth: An Apolitical's Case for the Right Wing

Over the last several months, I have noticed with increasing clarity that many Indians, particularly those of the urban, affluent, politically left-leaning kind, simply do not have the eyes of an Indian. Instead, they have the eyes of the "global citizen", where you belong to nowhere and nothing but yourself, and your ability to take what you want is not limited by pesky inconveniences like nationality, indigeneity, and culture.

These people do not seem to care about the historical fact of several millennia of sustained Hindu thriving in the Indian Subcontinent, nor about the present-day fact that Hindus are by far the biggest demographic in India, so every party should be begging for Hindu votes just on the basis of basic rules of democracy. For them, the BJP is by default the "bad party" in India because it is pro-Hindu, and the INC by default the "good party" because it is nominally secular.

In fact, they seem set on rejecting the historical tradition of Hinduism in the Indian Subcontinent. This makes India's constitution a mightily convenient document for these classes.

The tradition of Hinduism is intangible. The constitution, on the other hand, is a "real" book; it can be seen, heard, smelled, touched, even tasted, if you're particularly freaky about it.

The tradition of Hinduism has its own ideals to aspire to, its own prescribed goals to pursue. Not only are certain goals and ideals prescribed, but historically, people who have aspired for them have repeatedly, consistently illustrated their utility in living life well.

Rights and freedoms in Hindu tradition, just like in all other comparably old religious traditions, are enmeshed with duties and responsibilities. The constitution, on the other hand, gives individuals rights and freedoms, but no ideals to aspire to. The only "goals", listed in the preamble, are collectivist in nature and have no practical utility for the individual.

Incidentally, this breeds a unique class of people who, determined to replace intangible tradition and conscience with the tangible constitution, pursue the goals set out in the preamble - solemnly resolving to secure to citizens justice, liberty, equality, fraternity, etc. - as if they do have practical utility in themselves, as if they themselves are productive targets for day to day life. But that's a deviation of topic I am not willing to take right now. These are usually not very nice people to be around, let's just leave it there for now.

This leaves people with the "freedom" to make up their own ideals. Naturally, this all descends pretty quickly to the basest level that humans will go to. 

We have the freedom to do what we want to do, but we do not have the freedom to want what we want to want. In other words, we have no control over what we want. Our idea of "freedom" usually ends at the first half of that sentence, but we need to remember the more important second half for the first half to have any meaning at all. Unless we can want what we want to want, doing what we want to do can be not only useless, but harmful. 

The ideals in religions set out a pacesetter, a benchmark, by which to measure yourself. A modern liberal democratic secular world sets out exactly nothing in this regard.

In contrast to the studiously constructed, manmade origins of the Left's (ironically) intangible ideals, the tangible biological origins of religious ideals are revealed in the rampant rates of mental disorders like depression, anxiety, and the likes all over the developed world, which are, more than anything else, a lack of identification with a suitable ideal for personal development.

The scalar, unchanging "human" of "human being" has had its time in the sun. Perhaps now it's time for the vector, dynamic "being" to shine through.

Any ideal that demands sacrifice, hard work, or inconvenience instantly becomes public enemy number one in a system with rights and freedoms but no prescribed goals and ideals to aspire to, and the convenient becomes king. Any identity that demands some sacrifice of personal freedom is seen as [insert feminist buzzword here], because after all, are we not free individuals?

"Individualism" may be an important cornerstone of today's global society, but individualism doesn't end at being able to do what we want to do. This modern interpretation of the word is the greed-driven, ego-driven perversion of a path that must, of logical necessity, end in spiritual enlightenment, nowhere else.

Individualism without the desire to understand the things that the ego doesn't control (trivial things, such as sleep, hunger, heart rate, digestion, thoughts, and desires) is not "individualism" at all. 

Individualism that is limited to the limits of the ego is just the ego - nothing more.

This ego-centric individualism is merely conformity masquerading in the skin of individualism. What's more, it is the worst kind of conformity - a conformity of individuals agreeing to succumb to base desires, agreeing to be weak, agreeing to be amoral, even deliberately immoral. 

On the social scale, this ego-driven individualism is seen in the opposition to nativism, to tradition, to preestablished rules, in order to create a Homo novus who cares about nothing but convenient pleasure, and demands for himself nothing but the resources to achieve the same.

Tradition is seen from the lens of convenience, and thus usually discarded.

ScienceTM helps these 'folx' remain in their own echo chamber, because after all, what sane person would value intangible things over tangible things, right? 

Even the change over time in the meaning of the word "sane" or "sanity" reveals this rot. The word "sane" originally meant "healthy", as seen in the famous Roman maxim 'mens sana in corpore sano' (a healthy mind in a healthy body). It is not for no reason that the Roman Empire lives on in the heads of young men all over the world rent-free. Nowadays, however, "sanity" has acquired a distinct smell of conformity and harmlessness rather than of health, per se. The Romans, of course, were big on intangible things such as glory, honor, and virtue, notions that are not only unfamiliar but "toxic" to the modern leftist.

On the personal scale, ego-driven individualism manifests in the fucked up dating world of today, where the gradual smoothening of individuals that makes marriage tenable over years, even decades, is seen as Toxic TraditionTM prima facie, and rejected out of hand.

If you remove the process of gradual fine-tuning that typifies all good marriages, from the equations of love, what are you left with? Just the naughty bits, basically - exactly what the modern dating scene seems to be all about.

I am not such a traditionalist that I will say "marriage is giving, giving, giving", but I will say that it's no wonder the institution cannot survive in a world based entirely on "taking, taking, taking".

For "global citizens" with eyes that see the world like this, it is the person striving for something bigger than himself that is the biggest enemy. By simply rising above what he used to be, this "Homo antiquus", if you will, shows the Homo novus a black mirror that the latter cannot face. He reminds them that they have turned their backs on what is good for the sake of what is convenient, and they cannot stand him for it.

Thus, Narendra Modi, the BJP, and the RSS become "divisive populists" in a country with 80% Hindus. 

Elon Musk becomes a "toxic promoter of misinformation" for having the resources to purchase one of the Left's best mouthpieces and the courage and conviction to destroy its heavily and pretty openly biased censorship mechanism.

Donald Trump becomes [insert feminist buzzword here] for his terrible crime of ... wait for it ... Prioritising the country of which he is the democratically elected president!! Oh, the horror!! Oh, the horror!!

Globally, the great weakness of the right wing has always been its inevitable fragmentation. Unlike the left wing, which is based on a common intellectual framework which can be superimposed on any and all local traditions and ways of life, the right wing has no common framework to protect, apart from in the most abstract sense. The system the right wing protects is necessarily organic, native to each individual culture that comes up with its own, based on regional particularities. There cannot be a "Global Right" in the same way that there can be a "Global Left". Any lasting global alliance of the right wing can be based only on ability and a mutual pursuit of "the good", in whose admiration it so starkly contrasts with the left wing.

This is why local wins for right wingers can and should be celebrated by right wingers everywhere, because every right wing victory is also a dent in the Global Left's ability to control the narrative, which is essential to its success. 

Due to its inherently artificial nature, leftist ideology needs to cut off dialog some way off from the fundamentals of human experience, whose origin it by its own nature cannot decipher.

This leaves a gap where right wingers can freely fly, but where leftists find no footing, because it goes deeper than their manufactured worldview. Hence, leftist rule, even in theory (unlike rightist rule), depends upon silencing those who go deeper than the party line permits.

In whatever election is upcoming where and when you read this, feel free to vote for whomever you want, but remember that, all other conditions being equal, only the right wing will allow you to vote for whomever you want. The reason minorities have always been able to live relatively trouble-free in India, right since prehistoric times, is the religious, right-wing mold of Hinduism, which saw a person for what they did, not for who they were. The reason job seekers from all over the world traveled to the USA and the UK during the 20th century was the religiously based, right-wing structure of these countries, which, again, respected the dignity of the working individual who could contribute to the bigger picture in some way. As far as I know, people weren't exactly lining up to move to the USSR or its allies during the Cold War, but the US, the UK, and Canada saw a constant stream of immigrants - this was no coincidence.

The Left may keep you fed and watered, but the Right will expect you to be able to put food on the table yourself. It takes some time and maturing to see the privilege afforded to you in the latter case and the disabusal of rights that comes with the former. Regardless of the unpopularity of this creed among children and adults with the brains of children, it is important to remember that teaching a man how to fish is more important than giving a man a fish. After a decade of what seemed like children gaining power everywhere, the adults are coming back, and I'm all here for it.

Disclaimer:

Beyond the stuff that seems to apply to real-life left-wing and right-wing political parties, I am more trying to get to the ideological foundations of the two sides, which are really the two faces of humanity, rather than their actual real-life political manifestations.

I am trying to judge the left wing and the right wing by their own rules. I may be biased, but I am trying to be fair.

Tanmay Viraj Tikekar

20/01/2025