Tag: Denis Villeneuve

Deconstruction – reading between the lines

Logic always talks about ones and zeros. But when logical, philosophical arguments end up in a paradox we discover a totally new understanding about reality which is neither one nor zero but a spectrum. Jacques Derrida’s basic urge through deconstruction is the rejection of the duality or presumption, and seeing beyond what is shown using the limitations of language. Deconstruction helps to come out of the duality of any argument by putting relative meaning at the center instead of loyalty towards the signs used to show the meaning.

Jacques Derrida’s philosophy for the better understanding of the reality

Language and its purpose

Questioning is at the core of philosophy. Philosophy’s main pursuit is always to create an understanding about the subject of interest. It provides a way to create a basic and concrete understanding of the subject. It is a way to understand the creation and things that are beyond creation. Philosophy is the process of formalizing any concrete understanding so that a new evolved, more absolute understanding could be built upon that foundation.

The means to create such understandings are languages; it could be any language, of symbols, pictures, sounds, geometries, etc. Language serves as the most important tool to formalize any thought, idea, proof, postulate. So, every component of the language has to mean something to create a bigger meaning; like in speech, every word means something. When I say ‘child’ you will see a human young-ling, when I say ‘apple’ you see a red fruit of that particular shape, and when I am saying apple, you are sure that I am not talking about ‘oranges’, because orange is associated with something different looking ‘fruit’ (some would even think of an iphone when I say apple!). This shows that just like how atoms create molecules thereby the object, in similar sense, words of basic meaning create an expression and thereby some context which shows what we mean when we are saying them together to convey a bigger meaning.

Just like atoms of different elements from the periodic table come together in different permutations and combinations to create variety of compounds and infinite objects rather the whole universe, in the same sense every component of given language carries a value – a meaning which builds a narrative, an expression to create a context, a logical statement; a set of such logical statements together can point to some truth, some fact. If used in smart ways, it can help us to discover the hidden sides of our understanding. That is roughly how science and mathematics work.

But you know what? When we are investigating the boundaries of our understanding, we see that they all end in paradoxes, some self-referential paradoxes. Take for example, Epimenides paradox (the Cretan philosopher Epimenides of Knossos) as follows:

Epimenides, a Cretan says, “All Cretans are liars”.

Now what does this convey? Prima facie it feels like all Cretan people are liars, but then you see that person who is saying this is also a Cretan that makes him a liar, so he too is a liar. But if Epimenides himself is liar then what he said is also a lie, meaning that Cretans are not liars rather they are veracious. If Cretan’s are veracious then what Epimenides says is truth meaning that all Cretan’s are liars and this means Epimenides is also a liar. We end up in a loop, a self-referential paradox.

In the end, the sentence does not make sense, logic, the sentence is meaningless.

What happened here?

We used a language medium to create a meaning which helped to create newer understanding but that new understanding led us to bigger confusion, meaninglessness.

Here, I pose a very important question –

if the context of the sentence is meaningless does that mean that the words from which that sentence is made – words which have their own individual identity, their own absolute meaning a context are also absolutely meaningless?

What if we encounter same situation in the philosophical endeavors? as they are the building blocks our overall understanding of the creation and things beyond creation.

This is where the philosophy of deconstruction given by Jacques Derrida comes into light. I will try to explain deconstruction by building on some ideas. (you will see in the end that nothing “absolute” makes any sense or doesn’t even exist. That is also why deconstruction was rejected by many great philosophers but it has a valid point to prove.)

The flow of thought presented hereon is roughly like building an understanding and then challenging that idea because it does not present the best model of how our reality, our consciousness work.

Logocentrism

Western philosophy is based on the foundations of ‘the reason’. The Greek word logos (λόγος) literally means word, discourse, or reason. So, logocentrism considers language as the expression of reality and hence stands as a mediator between conscious and reality.

It is very important to understand that every type of understanding, knowledge building, sharing, communicating activity is associated with language. You need a medium to give a proper structure to what you are thinking and let others comprehend it. Logocentrism focuses on that.

As we have seen already that use of language in certain way could create meaninglessness, self-referential paradox, does that mean language is failing to create better truths? What exactly is happening? If language and logic is paradoxical then the reality which they are explaining must also be paradoxical but that is not the reality we live in (if it would be paradoxical, then reality would not exist, the paradoxical elements would annihilate each other)

This means that there is something lying beyond the territories of language which we are not able to comprehend and translate which could solve this paradox of language.

(Park this first thought in your mind for some time)

Plato’s definition of reality – Platonism and The theory of forms

Plato called out for “essence” of everything that exists. Essence represents that absolute truth which we try to define using ‘forms’, the forms are ideas which are non-physical, timeless, absolute. The forms create reality but they are beyond our grasp because of our physical limitations.

So, building on the theory of forms Platonism believes that in surety that there is something truly pure and absolute at the bottom – at the root of existence. It supports the existence of abstract objects which are believed to exist in the realm which is different from sensible external world and our internal consciousness.

So, when you try to comprehend the Platonism and logocentrism together, you will appreciate that language and the logic it conveys, the meaning, the context it conveys is the foundation of how we understand the creation, the philosophy itself and the products of philosophy.

Language creates an objective pivot to create absolute ideas whose correlation yields into higher truths. Language creates ‘meaning’, ‘context’, ‘logic’ according to the Platonism.

(Park this second thought)

Semiotics – Language as signs

If language is so important to understand the true reality, it becomes very important to create a structure, rules, grammar to use it effectively. Semiotics deals with these ideas.

A sign is an important part of any language, one can say that any language is made up of signs. Ferdinand de Saussure, one of the two founders of Semiology established the two components of sign as signified and signifier. As these both words are self-explanatory – signified is the one which is of interest (also known as the ‘plane of content’) and signifier is how we are observing thereby expressing the object of interest (also known as the ‘plane of expression’).

So, in written language when I am saying apple, you know I am talking about the fruit called apple which looks red, tastes tart-sweet, is crispy-crunchy in texture when one takes its bite.

(This is the third thought to be parked)

Aufhebung – the sublation

In the modern western philosophy, which considered the language as the path leading to ultimate truth the idea of sublation created ‘logical’ revolution. The language as a tool to develop logic and this logic then leading to the investigation and discovery of the ultimate truth became really vital. For logic to remain ‘logical’ one needs to define the basic objective sides like right or wrong. A given idea must be right to exist in reality otherwise, it is wrong and is invalid. We build many arguments of right and wrong to lead us to the absolute understanding. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is known to develop the idea of sublation. Aufhebung literally means ‘to suspend’, ‘to abolish’.

For example, darkness is the condition when there is no light. If a place is called ‘lit’ it means that there is no darkness. So, this dualism created through sublation gave the greatest philosophical power to language and thereby logocentrism. When something is not good it is called as bad, when there are enough logical arguments like such ‘binary oppositions’, one can reach to the absolute truth as far the logocentrism goes. The process almost becomes objective, self-sufficient, and mechanical, there are no chances of human error when we are handling philosophical treatise; this is the same foundation through which judicial systems created the structure of law.

(the fourth thought to be parked)

Deconstruction

What came first – chicken or the egg? meaning or language?

Just recall the four ideas which we parked before.

Jacques Derrida is the philosopher who developed the ideas of deconstruction who solved the paradox of the logic in the logocentric philosophy.

It is important to accept that wherever a paradox arises there lies an opportunity of the creation of a new branch in our knowledge system. The deconstruction is that new branch which got created here. Derrida rejected the idea of Platonism. His work in deconstruction is highly inspired from the philosophy of phenomenology. Phenomenology is the study of fundamental nature of subjective consciousness and experience.

One would get confused to appreciate the matter of subjectivity in a philosophical discourse but phenomenology presents some valid points when we are questioning the reality and developing its understanding. How can subjectivity guarantee absolute truth?

Life was always there even before chicken and egg and also in both of them

Did you get my point?

The moment we separated egg from chicken and posed them as two distinct objects the famous question about their existence in timeline becomes meaningless. In the same sense, other similar questions have exactly same meaningless fate – what is life and death? what is good and bad? what is right and wrong? what is truth and lie?

Derrida pointed out that the moment we create duality in any argument we are losing some important information which could have showed us the ‘real’ reality. Maybe reality is not just two sides of the coin, maybe absoluteness itself is not ‘absolute’. In the attempt to create purely logical arguments, we lost the possibilities to see the real context behind the existence of these arguments.

Derrida strongly promoted the idea that meaning was always there, language is just a way to convey that meaning. Using language to find out new meaning does not lead to newer meaning because this ‘structured’, ‘logical’ language has already submitted itself to the already established two sides of the result – it will either be ‘right’ and if it is not right it will be ‘wrong’.

(Now bring that first parked thought of logocentrism – idea that language is the expression of the reality)

As the logocentrism goes, language is the mediator between consciousness and reality.     

Now read the lines below:

This is an example taken from internet. Fact is that every average, normal person can read and understand this. Our brain is always on energy optimization mode. It never reads each and every letter to make a meaning out of the given word, it looks at the bunch of symbols to make sense out of it. This is small example to show that meaning is more important than the symbols, signs used to convey that meaning.

If we were to strictly submit to the rules of English vocabulary and grammar, this presented sentence is senseless to all of us. That is why complete loyalty to language instead of meaning is of no use as Derrida says while explaining deconstruction.

(now bring the remaining thoughts parked in your mind)

Meaning is relative

In deconstruction, Derrida talks about how we understand anything, any idea and how logocentrism, structuralism limited our understanding. The example of scrambled words helps to identify the idea of difference – Derrida called it Différence (as in French pronunciation). Whether I call it difference in english or différence in french, you understand what I am talking about because you get the context (that we are comparing something and this is the word to establish the gap between that comparison)

When I say apple how do you know what I am talking about?

You understand that I am talking about a fruit based on the context of my speech. Otherwise, there are definitely some people who would thing of an apple as an iPhone. So, when I say an apple, you think of a class of fruits, compare other fruits with ‘this’ one, this happens really fast and we are unaware of it after some time. This is true because when I am saying apple you are sure that I am not talking about oranges or any other fruits.

When I am saying dog, you know it is dog because it is different from cats, cows, horses. You are sure of the dog ‘animal’ because it is different in some sense than other animals.

Do you see what is happening here?

Our association of given word to any object whether it may be tangible or intangible is not absolute and self-reliant. It is relative. It is built based on how it differs from another objects. This is really important to understand and appreciate when one is trying to understand deconstruction.

The logocentric and linguistic tool that we are tying to use to understand the absolute truth has its limitations of preconception. The logic has already defined its two states of existence. That is why the language based on such logic will be filled with paradoxes and will never yield newer truths.

Derrida posed validity of his idea of deconstruction by showing the limitations of semiotics.

Take speech as the language of philosophy to find the absolute truth. There is a moment in Christopher Nolan’s movie inception.

We always initiate our thinking by creating certain arbitrary point as a pivot to build logic upon it. Here, the person was told to not think about elephants and in order to not think about elephants he had first defined what elephants are – where he paradoxically first thinks about elephants – to not think about them! Did you see what happened here?

Derrida says that even though the ‘sign’ which goes as the fundamental block of language as semiotics show, it is not self-reliant, self-established. For a sign to signify something specific, it has to differ from the other objects on certain attributes, the meaning of that sign will be relative.

The Swastika used by Nazi is a holy symbol in Hindu culture which signifies well-being. (you definitely are aware of its meaning in western civilizations)

Meaning of signs is always relative, contextual.

It is our complete loyalty to symbols which misleads us, where in reality the symbols are mere media to convey the meaning, context and not the other way around. Meaning created signs, language, language does not create meaning. That is exactly why complete and blind submission to language in the pursuit of truth leads to dead end.

The purpose of language/ signs in deconstruction

(recall the fourth idea of sublation, duality in logic)

Derrida attacked the semiotics by showing its limitations.

Now, we already understand what is signifier and signified. Derrida argued that if there was no difference between signifier and signified there would not be any purpose of existence of the ‘sign’.

To explain this argument in simple words, if you are not told about the varieties in the citrus fruits, you cannot tell which one is Lemon, which one is Mandarin, which one is Lime, Pomelo, Kumquat, Grapefruit, Bergamot and Citron.    

If you don’t know the difference, everything would be lemon and orange

The relative difference between objects and ideas gives them their meaning. That is exactly why surrendering to strictly assigned meaning would steal the idea of its real nature. The idea would lose its other aspect due to the loss of information during formalization.   

So, deconstruction shows that meaning is relative. When a sign is presented, a language is used to build an idea,  it invites all its attributes and its contradictions. Again, Derrida says that blind surrender to formal attribute would never help in revealing the true nature of reality.

That is exactly why deconstruction also challenges sublation. According to deconstruction, there are never two extremes of any idea, attribute, sign. If we give into the idea of good-bad, black white, right-wrong we are losing the crucial information which lies in the spectrum that exists between these two ends. If we are able to create different levels in between these extremes of sublation we will discover new ideas.

When we talk about darkness, we know what brightness is, the relation between these two extremes helps us to understand each other. It is also true that there is some limitation in our vision which makes it impossible to perceive the constituents of the darkness, darkness is not darkness in itself, it is made up of other spectrums of light like infrared, ultraviolet. (This is just a scientific example but same can be implemented in purely philosophical treatise)

Deconstruction

So, Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction challenges the logical dualism and the purity, absoluteness of language – a powerful tool and foundation of the philosophy.

Derrida attacked logocentrism by showing the flaws in the structuralism, Derrida showed that language is actually fluid while conveying the meaning instead of being completely static.

Derrida proved his point by showing our preferences for the languages. For discussion he took preference of speech over writing.

Speech involves various modulation while expression which is not possible through writing. Even though writing has certain symbols to signify those periodic gaps they cannot replace the advantages of speech.

Now, when an overly complex idea is to be presented, in order to review the train of thoughts again and again, written language is more effective than speech. Wherever you have to ‘technically’ present a thought, written communication is better, when you want to preserve an idea forever written communication is better than speech.

This is where we realize that there is nothing like the best and the worst. Each language has its own characteristics which can be only understood and appreciated once we see the difference between them. The differences between them show that there is no hierarchy among them. There value proposition is relative.

Now the moment I bring in today’s recorded audio-visual medium which is the most popular language of documentation, writing and speech will seem trivial, but they still hold their value in certain aspects.

The meaning of deconstruction as Derrida says is to break down the language to understand what is also does not mean. Our human instinct and training in language pushes us to stick to the predefined notion of the language whereas we forget that our understanding of that very notion emerged from its comparison to other parts. Derrida through deconstruction urged that while looking at something to understand seeing what lies beyond its appearance will give you the real understanding.

Why seeing beyond what is shown is important? Because the understanding with which we are trying to interpret what is shown was never absolute, it was created only because of the difference between what it is and what it is not.

This is where deconstruction starts to confuse everyone. Derrida called this puzzlement “Aporia”.

Why the idea of deconstruction felt wrong? And is it really wrong?

The tool Derrida used to explain the notion called deconstruction itself becomes the weapon to destroy that same idea.

The very first thing to understand deconstruction is to remove the presumption which logical language, logocentrism gives that these are fully defined, singular objects which are being discussed. The moment object of discussion becomes singular, we lose the possibilities to see its other attributes. To deconstruct is to remove the preconception that there is something really absolute that we are trying to discover.

It’s like searching for star emitting only infrared light by using the camera which only works in the visible spectrum of light, because you assumed that there is only visible light and where the light is not there it is only dark. You won’t even be able to appreciate that there are some stars which emit different type of light. You presumption of duality of dark and light prevented that different knowledge of your reality. Only relative understanding of the light waves can help you appreciate that there are some waves which are different from others, which are on a ‘spectrum’.   

Derrida’s ideas were controversial because most of the critical ideas in philosophy, mathematics are built upon clear distinction between objects and their fixated meaning and attribution.

Even for the word deconstruction, people attributed it to rejecting what the language conveys and accepting rather its opposite.

Deconstruction is not just breaking down any idea to expose its flaws. Deconstruction rejects the complete loyalty to the focal point of discussion while inviting the references which created our so called ‘focal point’. Most of the times our trained brain seeks for exact opposite which is where deconstruction gets misinterpreted.

Conclusion

Derrida’s basic urge through deconstruction is the rejection of the duality or presumption, and seeing beyond what is shown through the language. When we are talking about something we interpret what is our ‘subject matter’ because we know the differences between other subjects and ‘this’ subject. When we appreciate such differences the meaning becomes fluid instead of static, the thinking becomes analogue instead of digital ones and zeros. Possibilities open-up instead on being ended in the paradoxes. Whatever we are thinking about and establishing as the singular truth is inherently non-singular because it always needs its other counterparts to justify its position.

Many religious wars were waged because of remaining loyal to the religious languages, script and not understanding what they actually meant, many laws were exploited because the loopholes were discovered based on understanding only what they meant. This keeps on happening.

Deconstruction becomes very important tool to critique the ideas given in any discussion where the final pursuit is meaning and not the formality.

For Derrida’s deconstruction the ‘Aporia’, the puzzlement is not a sign of weakness rather it is the sign of maturity.

Derrida’s deconstruction thus showed that only fancy formalization of philosophy will not help us to understand the reality. We have to get rid of our loyalty to the idea that there is something really singular out there which would define everything in the end. Meaning is not what the language is conveying structurally, it is also what lies beyond that which is not conveyed.  The things which are not conveyed are the line of comparison to define the worth of the things being conveyed.  

“The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you’ve gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you’ve gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you’ve gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?”

Zhuangzi, Chuang Tsu: Inner Chapters

P.S. You will appreciate the ideas of deconstruction more if you watch Denis Villeneuve’s movie Arrival (2016). The movie beautifully shows the gap between language and meaning and also how potent the ideas of deconstruction are!

Dune: Psychology in Science Fiction

Our identity is heavily influenced by the surroundings we live in. A healthy understanding of the gap between ‘labels given to us by our surrounding’ and ‘what we consider ourselves at core’ defines how we perform, how we behave in given situations. Frank Herbert effectively used these ideas of human psyche in his Dune Saga. The antihero story of Paul Atreides indicates psychological ideas of cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and Pygmalion effect. It is interesting to understand how our minds are so sensitive at the levels of self and group simultaneously.

How Frank Herbert used human psyche in the creation of Dune’s antihero?

We saw how some fantastic philosophical ideas come alive in the character arc of Paul Atreides. The discussion hereon is the extension of the previous philosophical one, now we will dive deeper into the psychological aspects of Dune Part Two.

There will be heavy spoilers for Dune Part Two hereon!!!

Existentialism in Dune Part Two

As Paul gets more and more involved in the events on Arrakis with Fremen, he finds out what needs to be done, he finds clarity and purpose. He is renouncing the leadership in the early part because he does not know what to do with it. The moment he decides to become the Lisan al-Gaib, the moment he finds the purpose of his being, he gets the clarity.

According to Existentialism, there is no other meaning to the life but the meaning you give it yourself. Existentialism says that man is born free and can chose any actions to live but in the end he/ she will feel like they lived for nothing. They will remove this ‘existential angst’ only when they decide what they want to do with their life. The moment people consider themselves responsible for the events and consequences in their lives, take deliberate actions to achieve them that is the exact the moment where they find the meaning in life. Then everything, every action every decision starts to make sense. You feel like you exist for something.

This existential journey of self-discovery is exactly what we see in Paul’s journey to become the Mahdi. Avenging his father’s life becomes the ultimate goal of Paul in early moments but later on things take different turn. This is existentialism on personal level.

Fremen of Arrakis are the best example of existentialism in masses. The Fremen people are able to sustain in the hostile environment of Arrakis not because that is the only choice. They also have a strong belief, a hope that someone from outer world will save them one day and make their planet the Paradise, the Lisan al-Gaib will come to save them. Although Paul and Jessica know that it is a story properly planned by Bene Gesserit, although there are also Fremen who oppose this prophecy (Chani is one of them) still it gives them all hope, a reason to live for, a reason to survive for. Everyone makes sense of this prophecy in their own ways, their own belief systems.

Do you see what is happening here?

There is one group who is religiously putting their faith in the hope of the messiah for their survival and on the other hand there is a group who dismisses this idea and think that they themselves have to take care of their survival. The messiah will be one of them, not someone sent from the outer world.

We know what happens in the end. But from an objective point of view we see that people create there own perspective for survival. It doesn’t matter who was right and who was wrong in the end. What matters is whether is guaranteed the survival of Fremen. No wonder Jessica considers the artificially planted faith for Lisan al-Gaib among Fremen as an act of giving them a hope.

In either way, some sort of meaning would ensure survival of the Fremen.

The meaning of the life given to us is the meaning we assign to it.

The Prophecy – A Perfect Example of Confirmation Bias

The Prophecy plays key role in deciding the fate of key characters in Dune Part Two. Although we are aware that the prophecy a highly detailed plan to get the hold on Arrakis there are certain moments which fool us in believing that the prophecy might really be true. There is one justification for the correctness and validity for the prophecy. Somehow any powerful member from Bene Gesserit could have unlocked the exact power to see the future like Paul or Lady Jessica this person who could have seen the future and made this prophecy. We get no such signs in the narrative, but the story has enough resources and reasons to make it a valid point.

The event of Paul riding an elder worm, the worm stopping for Paul and Jessica in Dune Part One while crossing the dessert, Chani’s teardrop bringing back Paul alive (although she is manipulated to do that) are such events which confuse us when we try to reject the Prophecy. Either Bene Gesserit were too good to plan the people and resources for making the prophecy a reality or the person who made prophecy also unlocked the powers which Paul unlocked.

It is very interesting when Fremen come in one-to-one contact with Paul and Jessica. They are so influenced by this prophecy that whatever Paul may do, they attribute it to the prophecy. In early part at Sietch Tabr when Stilgar (who is one of the fundamentalists) is having discussion with the Fremen elders, we are given a hint of this strong Confirmatory Bias in Fremen, especially the fundamentalists.

Stilgar – I saw things.
Elder – Stilgar, your faith is playing tricks on you.  

This is an indication to how a blind faith could drive people into looking for signs and making sense from anything that supports that faith.

You must understand that, the existentialism makes life as a meaningless affair – we try to calm our mind/ our senses by assigning a meaning, a perspective to make sense out of the creation. Cognitive Bias lies on the negative extreme of such existentialism. An existence where we are only accepting the events, signs which support out beliefs. This also the transition region where spirituality is converted into pure religion. Stilgar is the perfect example of one such religious follower suffering from Cognitive Bias.

It is also very understandable for the people like Fremen who have nothing hopeful to live and nothing to pivot on, the idea of savior from outer world fuels them to continue the fight for survival.  

There is subtle hint that Paul may not be the only messiah that Arrakis might have seen. The Emperor in his discussion with Princess Irulan mentions Muad’Dib as “some new Fremen Prophet”.

Confirmation Bias is the prejudice where we try to accept the proofs which support our beliefs and reject those which don’t. Fremen people demonstrate such high levels of confirmation bias because Arrakis is the only reality they live in. People living outside the Arrakis like the emperor, Bene Geserit very well know that this is an intentionally planned act. And they very effectively implant such prophecies over the generations. It also shows how difficult it is to reject and go against the conventional beliefs especially the religious ones.

Did you ever have had an encounter with people who tell that this was already written in the older documents, scriptures? When we made certain scientific breakthroughs only then we are seeing them clearly mentioned in older writings, how is it possible? It feels counterintuitive but I would say going by the data instead of the intuition always helps to break such biases.

It feels against our mind because our mind only accepts that which will support the current beliefs. If the current belief gets falsified then our mind will start looking for another belief system which is much more like an existential angst – the existential confusion and the sadness that comes with it. If one meaning is falsified the mind must stick itself to a newer one otherwise life will feel worthless.

Image source: sketchplanations.com by Jono Hey

Cognitive Dissonance and Identity – What Makes Paul to Seek the Ultimate Power?

The confirmation bias is more powerful when it comes to the questions like ‘who you are?’, ‘what is your identity?’

Generally speaking, you are the best person who knows who you are (except your parents and some people close to you). What would happen if you are presented with the data, proofs which indicate that your parents are not your parents, your friends are not really your friends? They are just some paid actors (just like in the movie Truman Show).

Paul is portrayed as the Prince belonging to the House Atreides which is powerful and believes in fairness, justice, and the truth. The ideas associated with House Atreides support constructiveness, upliftment of those who are getting used for others’ benefits. Paul also strongly associates himself with these ideas even when his house is attacked by Harkonnens. He never tries to take advantage of the Fremen beliefs for personal gains. That can also be explained by one of the reasons he has to reject the Fremen Prophecy.

Then what makes Paul to accept this prophecy even when he knows that there are more proofs to reject the prophecy than to accept it?

It is when he knows the truth about his identity. The moment when he drinks water of life.

Upon understanding the ultimate truth, we come to know that Paul’s mother Lady Jessica is the daughter of Baron Vladimir Harkonnen. Paul understands that he is as Harkonnen as his villainous cousin Feyd-Rautha.

This is where his identity of Atreides filled with justice clashes with the cruel and much more powerful identity of Harkonnen. You can see him telling his mother that this is the way they survive – by being a Harkonnen.

When a person goes through such uncomfortable events where his/ her beliefs clash it creates a in harmony. These are the events where the person is confused about what exactly he/ she should believe in. As the early beliefs which were true for him, on which the person lived whole life were inherently false what defines him now?

Paul faces this cognitive dissonance about his identity. He himself is a Harkonnes – the Harkonnes whom he was considering the villains of his life and the lives of the Fremens.

What identity would Paul chose makes him the hero or the antihero in the end.

And Paul chooses the Harkonnen identity which make him the antihero. Please understand that he could have chosen a fair Atreides or Fremen ways to fight for the cause. The circumstances created around Paul supported him to become as ruthless as the Harkonnens. The Emperor and the great houses denying his ascension further fuel his wish to remain ruthless to justify the actions. The moment Paul associates himself with the Harkonnens, he justifies his urge for power as a valid one. Paul forgets his Atreides roots which could have made him the hero of the Dune’s story.

The Pygmalion Effect – Is Paul Really the Messiah?

The difference between a lady and a flower girl is not how she behaves, but how she’s treated.

Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw

One factor in Paul’s journey to become the leader of the Fremen and ultimately the Emperor can be largely credited to the support system created around him. It is clear that he goes through many hardships and sacrifices to achieve his goal but you cannot deny the inherent public support he receives through Fremen. It only because of the support from the Fremen people you will see Paul build the confidence even though in Dune Part One this was the exact person who tried to deny future leadership in front of his father.

How a person refusing leadership of his own house later accepted the leadership of the most controversial group, that to in very adverse conditions? Leading house Atreides was Paul’s birthright, an easy one. But, leading Fremen in clear opposition of the House Harkonnen, the emperor and the great houses was one very daring act to follow. What gave him all this strength?

The answer is – Pygmalion Effect

In psychology, Pygmalion Effect is the effect where high expectation from a person lead them to perform highly and effectively even in adverse condition.

Pygmalion word comes from the story of a Greek sculptor called Pygmalion who falls in love with his sculpture so much that the statue comes to life.

It’s like worshiping the rock can make it a God which could ultimately is believed to fulfill wishes.

The Bene Geserrit propaganda very smartly takes advantage of this idea. They create such support system around Paul which create one powerful leader in the universe who in his early life was not considering himself worthy.

Pygmalion effect highlights how the environments in which we live, how the people around who put their trust in us can boot our performance. According to Pygmalion effect, if a high performing person can deliver poorly if the environment and people are not supportive, it also is true the opposite way, any low performing person would deliver exceptionally when he is trusted by the people and the environment around him.

Pygmalion effect is also known as Rosenthal Effect in psychology.  Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson conducted a study on classroom students where they found that the students who are inherently reinforced to be the smarter perform better whereas students who are told that they are worthless already show under-performance.

Pygmalion effect shows us that we internalize or identity based on the surroundings we live in. No wonder they say that when you want to be a great man be in the company of great people. This internalization of or beliefs lay the foundation of our performance. That is exactly why so many Fremens believing in Paul gave him the power to stand against the Harkonnens, the Emperor, the Great Houses – entire Universe.

This is exactly why Pygmalion effect is highly associated with the self-fulfilling prophecies. The declaration of such prophecy irrespective of the knowledge of the future conditions people to create ways for such prophesied person; the person who show some signs aligning with the prophecy gets a boost which ultimately follows the prophesied path as the environment now completely supports that path – that is the path of least resistance leading to the glory.

Supporting environment creates high performers

Paul could have chosen another path to fight just like Chani chooses in the end but the Pygmalion effects kicks in, leading him to become the antihero – a high performing powerful antihero.    

You should appreciate that Pygmalion effect also shows how the opposite and downgrading environment will create a villain. A famous and itching question can be answered using this explanation. If baby Hitler was killed way before, would it have prevented the occurrence of the future world war? The answer is – NO. The conditions were developed in such way that even after killing baby Hitler someone else would have risen among that much hatred who would have led to the end effect, the name would have been different but the acts would be roughly same and inhumane. That is why our environment is an important part of our identity, even if the environment is hostile, what we consider ourselves at the core is equally important.

Nonsupporting environment creates low performers

(You can see that, even in adverse nonsupporting conditions of cognitive dissonance and identity crisis, a person can chose to remain good, can choose one identity over the other. I have discussed such scenarios in pop culture before. Read more about that here.) 

The Prophecy – Does ‘Free Will’ Really Exist in Dune?

The identity which Paul chooses after a cognitive dissonance about his origin and the Pygmalion effect from his environment make his the prophesied Lisan al-Gaib. Now it feels like it truly was the plan all along. This goes against the idea of free will.

Existentialism is based on the idea that as man is born free. It is in his mind, his responsibility to assign the meaning to his/ her own life. The ways and reasons for which Paul consistently rejects the prophecy is because he knows he is not ‘the one’. He knows that he is the son of Leto Atreides and should avenge his father’s death, hence his only purpose was to use the ‘desert power’ to defeat the Harkonnens and the Emperor.

Paul despises everything that is connected to the Prophecy. It is his interest in Fremen people and purpose of completing the vision of his father which drives him into becoming one of the Fremen. You will see Paul rejecting the idea of him being the Messiah in the early discussions with Chani.

The creation of prophecy and instilling the faith into Fremen for Paul indirectly always pushes him into doing what is expected. Paul never makes any decision out of the box. There are chances where he could have created other opportunities but the people around him, his blind followers could never let that happen. Paul is center of attraction for everyone that is why he is always bound to do what they want, otherwise he knows that he will lose that advantage and desert will immediately consume him like any common outsider. The advantage of being the center of attraction of your followers is that your followers will justify your every action; But in the end, you will also be bound to their expectations.

The powers of Bene Gesserit to manipulate people to do what they want, the unfolding of events leading to the war during the Fremen rebellion against the Harkonnen, the necessity to prove injustice with Leto Atreides to the Great Houses ultimately make the realization of prophecy possible.    

That is exactly why Paul gets tied up in the expectations of Fremen, his own self-respect and his own duty as a son. He knows he can avoid this path but chooses that path because that is how he will have ultimate power.

On the other side you will see Chani, she is fighting the same war but can chose her own ways to accomplish that goal. Remaining out of the focus of the religious followers gives her more freedom.

Lady Jessica also falls victim to the prophecy. Stilgar informs her in Sietch Tabr that if she doesn’t become the Reverend Mother she would have to die and Fremen people won’t save Paul. Even when she knows that the prophecy is false, she accepts it as a way to get things done according to her wishes. But again, the pressure from the faithful Fremen followers force her to follow the prophecy. Things doesn’t go right for her in the end. Lady Jessica also faces the cognitive dissonance like Paul about her origin as Harkonnen and chooses the predefined path of being the Reverend Mother.

One must appreciate how Frank Herbert created the story of Dune where the psyche of person drives the narrative. Frank Herbert was heavily influenced by Carl Jung’s archetypes and Dune reflects those archetypes. Dune also gives the psychological justifications behind the blind hero worship through some important character arcs.

It becomes very important to notice our end goals and whether our surroundings, our people are supportive of that. We as humans, are the beings of infinite capabilities, what we consider ourselves internally at core becomes very important in the end. Otherwise, the world is already prepared to overwhelm us with its preconceived notions of living a life.  

References and further reading:

  1. Confirmation bias sketch from Sketchplanations by Jono Hey
  2. Cover Image by Johannes Havn from pexels.com
  3. Dune: Philosophy in Science Fiction
  4. The Pygmalion Effect: Definition & Examples by Ayesha Perera on Simply Psychology.org
  5. The Batman- The superhero who ‘unlearned’ – Journey of a person through cognitive dissonance
  6. Existentialism – Zima Blue and Existentialism
  7. Biases and Delusions – Steering on the borders of rationalism and insanity
  8. Answering the questions on existence of “the existence”
  9. The Existence – Why? How? And What?
  10. Dune’s Ornithopters and Biomimicry

Dune: Philosophy in Science Fiction

The focus of Dune saga is on the ill-effects of hero worship. Frank Herbert warned his readers about the life altering consequences of granting too much power in the hands of a person who refrains to be questioned by his followers. The character arc of Paul Atreides depicts a moral dilemma. It also shows how power and aesthetics play a vital role when one is justifying actions, character and intent.

Dilemma of morality in the character arc of Paul Atreides

Dune Part Two shows how any person would react when thrown into the events where morals and ethics clash. Dune Part Two is about the creation of the antihero and his blind hero worship. It is important because it breaks down and effectively depicts the stages in which even a humble and good-hearted person can degenerate. Surrounding around such person has big role in it.

The focus of Dune saga is on the ill-effects of hero worship. Frank Herbert warned the readers of Dune about the life altering consequences of granting too much power in the hands of a person who refrains to be questioned by his followers. Superficially, Dune feels like a story where Bene Gesserit – a low lying powerful sisterhood planting an extremely powerful but manipulable Messiah to control the galaxy and how this Messiah ruins that plan. Deep down, Dune successfully amalgamates many philosophical, psychological concepts like Existentialism, Hero worship/ herd mentality, confirmation bias, free will and determinism.

Denis Villeneuve’s Dune Part Two has successfully translated the vision of Frank Herbert’s 1965 Sci-Fi which is more relevant than anything in the current times of 21st century. In Dune Part Two you see the transition of a young, humble, calm boy into an aggressive, extremely powerful leader – a leader who is worshiped like the God by his followers. As a fan of Sci-Fi movies, I would say Denis Villeneuve’s Dune movies have made justice with what the source material wanted to convey. (Historically, Dune series is known to be one of the most difficult materials to adapt into visual media)

The discussion hereon is not a movie review rather it is about how some fantastic philosophical, psychological, spiritual, and political ideas are brought together to create a more relevant story which is purely fictional. Despite being a fiction, it successfully depicts some important real-life scenarios and dilemmas we face in our very real lives. This all is credited to Frank Herbert and Denis Villeneuve’s vision.

There will be heavy spoilers for Dune Part Two hereon!!!

After watching Dune Part Two it is obvious that it is all about how an antihero is created. There is a moment in the end when you will lose the sympathy for Paul’s character because of the choices he makes and it is intentional. The movie gives us multiple viewpoints to justify why Paul Atreides becomes who he is. Obviously, his antihero arc creates a deep void in our heart. When I started to understand the narrative from Paul’s perspective, I stumbled upon some of the important ideas we use to justify our actions, decisions.

Boundaries of Right or Wrong – What is Moral? What is Ethical?

Let us understand the stages in which Paul is always rejecting the leadership – the prophecy of Messiah he is offered every time.

Rejection 1 – Paul has not demonstrated any grand act yet. He lacks clarity, vision.

Right from the beginning, Paul knows what it means to become the Lisan al-Gaib – the Messiah. You will see him rejecting the concept of becoming the prophesized leader. In Dune Part One you will see that he asks Leto Atreides, his father – What if he does not want to be the leader, the future of house Atreides? In response, Paul understands from Duke Leto that leadership is not a personal choice and when there will be a moment in which people will choose him as their leader and he will have to answer that call. The fear of leadership in Paul here is created due to very superficial simulation of future possibilities. He hasn’t even landed in Arrakis – the desert Planet. Here, Paul is just a well behaved, properly trained royalty who hasn’t tasted the reality of life yet. He theoretically understands the burden of leadership, the burden of the expectations of the people and that why humbly rejects it – as it is the ‘right’ thing to do. Understand that Paul’s rejection in this instance is because he doesn’t consider himself worthy. It is unethical for him to accept leadership which is granted just from the birthright. Understand that prophecy of Messiah is not apparent here, this is the leadership of his House.

Rejection 2 – The prophecy is just a clever plan. There is clarity on what and how events will happen but no clarity on what will cause them.

When Paul lands with his mother Lady Jessica on Arrakis he looks at the local Fremen people chanting his name as the one who was promised to free them from this exploitation of the foreigners – the Harkonnens for the precious Spice Mélange. Here, Paul understands from his mother that the religious Bene Gesserit sisterhood has planted a very meticulous storyline – a prophecy to ease out their path on Arrakis. The knowledge of ‘the prophecy’ being just a clever plan of Bene Gesserit sisterhood consoles Paul that he will always have the choice to reject the future responsibility of leadership. This rejection of leadership is due to understanding of the underlying truth and how hopeless people are getting fooled. Utilizing such false knowledge for self-benefit makes Paul uncomfortable.

Rejection 3 – Paul has clarity but doesn’t want to take the advantage of the Fremen Faith

After the death of Leto Atreides, Paul escapes to Fremen territory with Lady Jessica. Fremen accept him as he shows his skills in a fair fight. From this moment his goal is to survive with Femen’s to acquire the ‘Desert Power’ as desired by his father Leto Atreides. He still despises the Bene Gesserit Propaganda. He knows he will be fooling the Fremen by following the said prophecy. It is not ethical to utilize others’ faith for the personal benefit. That is why Paul is just trying to learn the ways of Fremen to avenge his father’s unjust murder orchestrated by the Emperor through House Harkonnen.

There is a discussion between Lady Jessica (who is now Reverand Mother) with Paul where she says that the prophecy has given Fremen people something to hope for and to fight for. This is the exact moment when Paul actively and aggressively rejects what she says.

Paul – It’s not prophecy. 
        It’s a story that you keep telling. 
        It’s not their story, it’s yours. 
        They deserve to be led by one of their own.

His rejection to leadership here is because it is unethical to play with other people’s faith.

Rejection 4 – Paul loves Chani. He knows the moment he accepts ‘the prophecy’ he will lose her.

There is a scene where Chani tells Paul that the Fedaykin worship him now, they count his victories. Chani (who doesn’t believe in the prophecy) warns him that people have already started worshiping him and this will not end well. To counter Chani’s fear Paul positively clarifies that he is not the Messiah and will always be a Fremen warrior – the Fedaykin. Paul mentions several times to Chani that he will love her as long as he breaths. As the prophecy goes, he should reserve his hand for the most strategic alliance which is with the Princess Irulan – the daughter of Emperor. Here, the rejection is due to the love he has for Chani.  

Rejection 5 – Paul knows that while becoming the Mahdi, he will lose his comfortable connect with Fremen. He will have blood of billions on his hands.

Upon the encounter with Gurney Halleck, Paul clarifies certain important things. Gurney is surprised that even after having following of 200 people and millions more, why isn’t Paul taking advantage of the prophecy to avenge the death of his father? Paul tells Gurney that the moment he becomes the Messiah, he no longer be friends with Fremen, because even his Fremen friends will worship him as the God – Lisan al-Gaib. He considers it unethical to utilize the innocent beliefs and trust of the people for him for his personal benefit.

Gurney Halleck – With thousands of these guys you can take control of the entire planet. It’s your father’s dream. What you are afraid of?
Paul – Worship, Gurney. They used to be friends, now they are followers. 

Gurney tells Paul that he holds the ability to avenge his father by accepting the prophecy. Then Paul clarifies that the moment he becomes the Messiah, the galaxy will be thrown into the holy war leading to deaths of billions of people. Paul doesn’t want their blood on his hand.

The rejection of prophecy here is due to fear of losing personal connect with the people who define and respect you. It is also because Paul wants to preserve his character.

At the end of the Dune Part Two, you know what exactly happened!

Are Morality and Ethics Objective?

So, even after having at least 5 concrete reasons to reject the prophecy, why does Paul decide to become the ruthless Messiah, Lisan al-Gaib? What made him lose all the ethical and moral standards he had preserved in him?

Simple and superficial answer to these questions is – the circumstances!

Deep down the answer is totally different. Let us understand what are morals and ethics

Morality is the sense of judging a decision, event or an action being proper or improper. Morality is the sense of what is right and what is wrong.

Ethics are detailed down, systematic small-small actions which show what doing good is. The opposite act of doing a good act will be doing a bad act.  

Morality are the universal standards for right and wrong and ethics are the rules to implement this morality in daily practice.

Question – How is it decided whether certain act is good or bad?

This is where the trick starts.

The base line to decide morality or ethics is always changing. It is like deciding ‘What level of big picture are you talking about?’

Frank Herbert was very intentional while creating such moral ethical dilemma through Dune series. As you are introduced to Paul right from the start of his journey, from a kid to the Messiah, you know why he did what he did. His Great House was betrayed by the Emperor and the Harkonnens. They tried to kill him, his pregnant mother, and his people. The responsibility to handle Arrakis was forced down on his house by the Emperor. He had every reason to kill his enemies. Whatever act Paul did to avenge his father/ his house was right and justified.

Does that mean that “whatever” and “everything” that he did and would do is right?

The death of billions of people he would cause (as seen in his visions) will it be justified?

Many Fremens devoted and died to Paul’s cause, will their deaths be justified?

You will see that the moment you shift from Paul’s personal baseline of morality to the baseline of the ‘good for all’, you will appreciate why the same Paul – the Messiah – Lisan al-Gaib – the Savior is also ‘the destroyer’ for remaining others. Thus, it is important to define that baseline while judging his actions.

Philosophy of Morality

There are two ideas on how to decide this baseline for morality of given things.

Immanuel Kant says the duty assigned to you; your obligation decides the morality – The duty-based definition of morality.

Immanuel Kant

John Stuart Mill says that whatever is good for most of all should be good for one – The utilitarian definition of morality.

John Stuart Mill

Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development give us a structured view about how the baseline to justify morality of anything works. This single image deserves a detailed explanation but it is self explanatory.

Morality needs understanding of “the big picture”

In Dune’s case, it was Paul’s duty to avenge his father’s unjust death hence he was right. Whereas letting his followers kill billions of people belonging to the houses who were not accepting his ascension as the Emperor was wrong – immoral. He commanded to destroy such opposing Great Houses just to establish respect for him out of fear. The intent was not pure.

For Fremen, the act of destroying everyone opposing their leader is way better and important than living a life of slave. At the same time same Fremen killing billions in the name of their Mahdi is bad.

For Jessica, survival of her children was more important than anything. She had also promised Leto Atreides that she will save her children not as Bene Gesserit but as a mother first. That is why she eases out the path laid for Paul which guarantees his and his sister’s survival. You will understand that Jessica fears becoming the Reverand Mother, she knows that she will have to carry the pain and memories of all those who came before her but upon hearing to the clarification from Stilgar, she realizes that it is the only way to ensure the survival of her children. So, she controlling the Fremen and spreading the prophecy of the Messiah (despite knowing it as just a clever plan) feels moral.

Stilgar strengthening the events from the prophecy in the minds of Fremen ensure betterment of his people. If his actions to spread and strengthen the path for Paul would lead Fremens people to a better life then his actions are well justified. But, the moment he blindly follows every order from Paul to obliterate everyone opposing him his actions become wrong.

When it comes to mere survival of Feyd-Rautha, Baron Harkonnen, Rabban, the Emperor, Princess Irulan, Reverend Mother Mohiam someone would feel that their actions are justified. (But, we already have many other reasons to assign them villainy.)

It’s like checking which one is more wrong – Killing an ant or murdering a person!

The moment you favor the life of the person than an ant, you will feel bad for what kind of animal you are. And the moment you favor life of that ant over the person you will feel bad as a human being.

Taking any life is bad in the end, but what if it’s about survival. Then it goes in the direction which poses question – whose life is more precious?

The Trolley Problem – Which lever will you pull?

Do you see how this streak goes on and on! This will not end until the questioner will be satisfied with comfortable answer!

One must appreciate the genius of Frank Herbert’s writing which created such important intersecting points in his story.

Power and Aesthetics

So, final question – what ultimately is the right or wrong?

The answer is how deeply are we able understand the scenario (and we may never understand every aspect most of the times.)  Actions are always changing with respect to the circumstances, killing a murderer will always be justified and right at the same time killing a Saint is wrong.

This reminds me of Nietzsche’s quote:

Thus, the dilemma grows bigger.

What is right and what is right is highly dependent on your limits, your capabilities, your ability to reverse the things to exactly how they were before. If you don’t hold that capacity, then you immediately lose the power to justify your actions.

Which is exactly why what Paul believes is completely wrong, it shows how Paul character has made transition…

“He who can destroy a thing has the real control of it.”

The power will enable him to destroy any given thing; but can he reverse that destruction if things did not turn out the way he intended? The ability to restore the consequences of your decisions decides whether you hold the power to assign good or bad.

If Paul does not bear the capacity to reverse or at least restore the impact of his decisions, then he is wrong to send his followers in that direction.

I think, this is the warning Frank Herbert gives to the real-life leaders and followers among us. This is exactly where powerful people go wrong and take their blind followers with them.

So, even though his intent was to avenge his father by becoming the Messiah, the path he would choose is wrong.

The path Jessica chose to control the Fremen through prophecy is wrong. The plans Bene Gesserit orchestrated to plant a powerful yet manipulatable person on Arrakis just to have control over Spice are wrong. There are always multiple choices,

(The conclusion of the Paul Atreides’s story and ‘Dune: the God Emperor’ will make us change our current opinions. That we will discuss again when the time is right.)  

Anyways words fail me when such real-life scenarios are flawlessly presented through fiction. There is no need for anyone to teach us what is right or wrong in such stories. The dynamics of the events and the characters show us the mirror. We always have such inner compass inside ourselves, stories like this are the greatest calibrator of such inner compasses.

The power to restore the consequences of our action is the real power, I think. This idea somewhat frees the justification of our actions from the dilemmas of morality.

There is more to discuss about Dune, find out here….

(Movies Scenes from Warner Brother’s Dune: Part Two)

Further reading:

  1. Dune : Psychology in Science Fiction
  2. Existentialism – Zima Blue and Existentialism
  3. Answering the questions on existence of “the existence”
  4. The Existence – Why? How? And What?
  5. Dune’s Ornithopters and Biomimicry

Dune’s Ornithopters and Biomimicry

I recently watched Denis Villeneuve’s Dune in theater. The movie is a visual masterpiece. I would say it is a dark chocolate for eyes rather than eye candy. The character development is more visual and not just a general exposition. The most fascinating things in the dune universe are the equipment, machinery, tools which do not involve a computer intelligence to control or maneuver. Impressive thing is that the technology shown in the universe of dune, looks futuristic but people, their culture, beliefs, politics, religion remains frozen in the time. It seems the harshness and difficulty of living has made the advanced technology shed its attractive- rather ‘showpiece’ aspects and only the utilitarian aspects of technology are maintained forever. Here, the technology is truly representing as a tool of people.

One of the things from ‘the Duniverse’ that intrigued me is ‘the Ornithopters’. When I saw them taking flight, the only thing that came into my mind was ‘Hummingbird’. Ornithopters are the helicopters equivalents on Arrakis- the desert planet. The ornithopters on Arrakis are six or eight winged flying pods which look like dragonflies, in fact Denis Villeneuve intended their design in that way. They fly by flapping their wings like hummingbird and have far better maneuvering abilities that a normal helicopter. They can glide way better due to their aerodynamic dragonfly-like shape. Here, the technology draws inspiration from the nature. Hummingbirds are the birds which can fly backwards, side-ways and downwards; they can do somersaults and are better in long term hovering compared to other birds.

Ornithopters in Denis Villeneuve’s Dune

There are many examples in real life especially in technology, where inspiration is drawn from the nature. Inspirations from nature are taken to solve the design problems and is known as Biomimicry or Biomimetics. The word is self-explanatory- ‘Bio’ means nature and ‘mimicry’ means imitation, enactment, copying.

Popular example of biomimicry is the design of bullet train. The engineers were facing problem of sonic booms when the train entered through a tunnel with high speed. The engineers solved the problem by designing the front end of the train similar to the Kingfisher’s beak. The inspiration was drawn from a picture of kingfisher diving into the pond for fishing. When a kingfisher dives for fish, there is no splashing on the water surface. The picture is captured just at the moment when beak of the bird enters the surface of water. In order to execute a successful fish hunt, the entry through the water must remain swift; For proper target there should not be splashing of water because undisturbed water surface will have more clarity. Same phenomena, functionality was implemented in the design of the bullet train.

‘The Shinkansen’- Bullet train

Lotus effect is also one good example of bio-mimicry. We all know the water repellent properties of lotus leaves, lily leaves. Two German botanists namely Wilhelm Barthlott and Christoph Neinhuis were studying highly magnified plant leaves. At high magnification of 1-20 nano-meters magnification, even a speck of dust can ruin the image. The botanists realized that there was no special need of sample cleaning for the lotus leaves samples. Upon detailed studies they found out that, there were two features contributing to the cleanliness of the leaves. One was the layer of wax, which is obvious for everyone. The second and the most unexpected feature was the presence of micro bumps on the surface. These small bumps trap air which creates higher contact angle between water and leaf surface. The water drop literally becomes spherical on these bumps as the air trapped between the bumps is pushing the water film inwards and surface tension is helping more and more to the formation of curvature.       

Lotus Effect

This effect was replicated using negative- positive molding processes for the preparation of Self-cleaning surfaces. It is like molding a wax statue but the here the technique is precise to microscopic scale. Self cleaning paints are getting introduced in the market recently.

Main thing to understand is that, not everything we derive from the nature could be called as biomimicry. Biomimicry is more about functionality of the design. Giving wings to a machine to fly won’t be called as a biomimicry, it will be called as a ‘Bio-inspired design’. A Bio-inspired design is more inclusive term which covers Biomimicry (functions like nature), Bio-morphism (as in more similar in looks with nature) and Bio-utilization (uses nature as an agency). In the case of the ornithopters, it is the higher pivot providing design of the wings. The hummingbirds have these wings with highest pivot angle between wings and shoulders which enables them to maneuver exceptionally.

Hummingbird have wings with high pivot angle

There is one organization focusing on the Biomimicry. The ‘Biomimicry Institute’ is a non-profit organization striving for bringing people together to solve the problems using biomimicry. Nature itself is running the largest laboratory for billions of years and we can look for solutions to our problem by just asking one simple question- ‘How would nature solve this?’ Janine Benyus– Cofounder of Biomimicry Institute popularized biomimicry. Her TED talk is available on the institute’s website- biomimicry.org. You should visit the website to explore more.

Biomimicry has made us realize that nature is the largest library that humans can ever have. Its conservation is not just important for the sustenance, but it can highly contribute to the technological advancements of humanity. Whenever we are losing a species, we are losing an immense source of knowledge which was result of millions-billions years of nature’s research. The thought itself can bring us closer to nature- natural resources and its conservation. Biomimicry will create more pro-nature solutions to the problems. Sometimes modern problems require bio-mimicked solutions! (Yes, I did that ;D)

For further explorations just google these:

  • biomimicry.org
  • How a steppe eagle’s wingtip solved Airbus A380 Wake Turbulence problem – Richard Hammond’s Engineering Connections- Airbus A380 documentary by National Geographic
  • Gecko’s feet and surface adhesion
  • Lotus effect and self-cleaning paints
  • Invention of Velcro

Further reading:

  1. Dune : Philosophy in Science Fiction
  2. Dune : Psychology in Science Fiction