Rhea, and other tricks our mind plays on us.

​
 
 
 
Something doesn’t seem right about Sushant Singh Rajput’s death. And it’s natural that we desire answers. Moreover, since it’s easier to feel convinced of fallaciousness than it is to find out where exactly the fallacy lies, it’s also natural that those answers become more gratifying when they pointedly fix the blame somewhere.
 
Hence, Rhea.
 
Okay, this is not to say that the lady in question couldn’t at all be complicit in the crime(if at all there was a crime). This is merely to point out a cognitive bias that stems from our need for closure; a bias that demands that effects be attributed to some ‘definite’cause. We simply will not have it that the cause lie scattered and strewn about.  Accordingly, a debilitating virus needs to be blamed on a China; a lagging business enterprise needs to be blamed on the wayward policies of a sarkar, a cricket loss needs to be blamed on a particular player.  
 
 
But reality is somewhat different. The truth is that we inhabit an impersonal universe where millions of agencies are at play. So what happens to us is the result of not one, but several agencies that have crossed paths in the past and have interacted among themselves. The event preceding an incident, hence, is not necessarily the cause of that incident. Also, an explanation of cause isn’t always a justification by reason.
 
So, when considering causality, while we do need to acknowledge the cause & effect of an empiricist, we may also want to bring in the religious philosophism that’s latent to our Indianness; the philosophism which espouses effects as diffused and subtle, as propinquitous and not overtly incumbent.