Continuing with the amnesia theme I touched upon in one of my earlier posts, I sometimes feel that there are either so many things that I didn’t know of earlier or so many things that I have come to realize only now. How it has come to be this way, I know not!!
Not so long ago, I was typing a report into my computer when I realized that I was not looking at the screen at all. I sat up amazed, and said, “Whoa! This is cool.”
The other day, this phenomenon reached its grand finale. What had started roughly 12 years ago with my typing on the computer for the first time, culminated in my being able to type by just looking at the screen and my fingers converting my stream of thoughts into appropriate array of words deftly and effortlessly. This surely was a wow moment.
The next couple of days, I spent bragging about my new-found talent. However, much to my chagrin, nobody around seemed visibly impressed. Apparently, this was no unique achievement. But that didn’t take away its uniqueness for me. I still felt on top of the world and wore a smile of satisfaction for a couple of more days.
Later I realized an interesting truth about life. Not that I hadn’t known it since the time I was a kid, but the context I found myself in, gave it a new meaning, or put more artistically, a new rendition.
The most ordinary things can acquire inexplicable extraordinariness in your otherwise uninteresting lives by virtue of they being borne out of circumstances that are unique to you, and vice-versa.
It is much like learning how to ride a bicycle, falling in love, experiencing parenthood, and savoring the joy of giving – all emotions experienced a gazillion times before by several different people. But the fact that they are happening to you, make them oh-so-special!!
It's like the world rediscovering itself over and over again, and the very process of this constant rediscovery making the ordinary seem truly extraordinary!!
March 19, 2006
January 14, 2006
Evil, Within and Without!!
What is evil? Or rather, I should ask, who is evil? Before we sit down to analyze snapshots from hell for evidence of evil and put them under the moral microscope to understand scientifically what constitutes hell, we need to understand the perspective that breeds and subsequently, defines evil through its relentless pursuit to put an end to its own phantasmagoric creation.
Well, if you ask people to define evil, they may come up with adjectives like greed, pride, power, money and even love. I am obviously not a believer in restricting the lot of evils to the seven cardinal sins, and am not willing to add onto the list either, even though I might accidentally have let some stray adjectives fall into the lot of the despicable evils. All I am saying is that there exists a difference of perspectives when it comes to the definition of evil. Evil for me might not be evil for someone else. And consequently, my hell will not be your hell. If this is so, then why this whole unfounded fuss about morality and what does it actually mean to say, “Go to hell!!”
What is the theory of the birth of evil, then? Well, honestly, there is not much theorizing involved here. Evil has existed since the birth of time and consciousness. What is more intriguing is to know when a man turns over to the other side and truly becomes evil. Let me tell you where I am coming from – I have just finished watching Lord of War and I was wondering when did Orlov actually become evil? My take, after he is disowned by his family. Or is it? Don’t we all remember the legendary Skywalker with an iota of goodness, if there is such a concept, still left in him that compels him to restore the balance of the force yet again?
Ok, let us complicate this further. Is it even to our advantage to deal with such absolutes? Can we not be just content with knowing that the person in question has, forever, blocked the nerve centers that lead to an unwanted repository of memories that reek of goodness? Well, here’s a thought. Maybe, just maybe, if we can decipher the process of turning evil, and track changes in neural pathways that lead to an eternally captured and impenetrably fortified alternate identity, we will be able to brand the condition as a disease and find a cure for it.
Scary, for the thought probably is the unearthing of a blueprint of the vicious life-cycle of evil.
Well, if you ask people to define evil, they may come up with adjectives like greed, pride, power, money and even love. I am obviously not a believer in restricting the lot of evils to the seven cardinal sins, and am not willing to add onto the list either, even though I might accidentally have let some stray adjectives fall into the lot of the despicable evils. All I am saying is that there exists a difference of perspectives when it comes to the definition of evil. Evil for me might not be evil for someone else. And consequently, my hell will not be your hell. If this is so, then why this whole unfounded fuss about morality and what does it actually mean to say, “Go to hell!!”
What is the theory of the birth of evil, then? Well, honestly, there is not much theorizing involved here. Evil has existed since the birth of time and consciousness. What is more intriguing is to know when a man turns over to the other side and truly becomes evil. Let me tell you where I am coming from – I have just finished watching Lord of War and I was wondering when did Orlov actually become evil? My take, after he is disowned by his family. Or is it? Don’t we all remember the legendary Skywalker with an iota of goodness, if there is such a concept, still left in him that compels him to restore the balance of the force yet again?
Ok, let us complicate this further. Is it even to our advantage to deal with such absolutes? Can we not be just content with knowing that the person in question has, forever, blocked the nerve centers that lead to an unwanted repository of memories that reek of goodness? Well, here’s a thought. Maybe, just maybe, if we can decipher the process of turning evil, and track changes in neural pathways that lead to an eternally captured and impenetrably fortified alternate identity, we will be able to brand the condition as a disease and find a cure for it.
Scary, for the thought probably is the unearthing of a blueprint of the vicious life-cycle of evil.
January 06, 2006
Clash of the Titans
Ok, the self-imposed ban on writing is over. It’s time to let the creative juices flow, yet again; time to pour, rather liberally, into the steady stream of life, my few drops, or shall I call them pearls, of wisdom!
I have occupied myself lately with watching movies at a rate that would put many a movie buffs to shame. If I may, I have watched not less than 50 movies in the past one month. And that is indeed saying much considering I am a veritable student in a certain Well-known Institute of Management in Western India that is known for its academic rigor. The objective, you ask. C’est très simple. Strike out movies from the list of Top 250 Movies of All-Time on IMDB as soon as possible and claim the status of the undisputable king of movie buffs at WIMWI. Sounds weird, doesn’t it? But it seems this is the best possible raison d’être I could possess to enliven my stay in an otherwise insanely competitive and radically absurd educational institute that is a consummate exemplification of the pretentious and boisterous big bad world of business out there. Hmm… so I am back to being my old cynical self. Bon!!
Lately, I have been occupied by a thought. Who is the greatest actor to have graced the screen ever? Is it Sir Lawrence Olivier or Marlon Brando? It is said of the comparison, “Mr. Brando formed characterizations within himself, but Olivier built them from bits and pieces of others he found outside.” Now, I don’t particularly understand the whole Method Acting debate and all that talk about the Konstantin Stanislavski System and its American derivative, the Lee Strasberg System. And quite frankly, I am the last person to answer the question that if Coppola had decided on Sir Lawrence instead of Mr. Brando, how the world would have known Don Corleone. It is like asking what would have happened if Nazi Germany had won the Battle of Stalingrad. Ok, the analogy sucked. But who cares!
All said and done, Brando rocked in On the Waterfront, The Godfather and Last Tango in Paris. He truly weaved magic into his characterizations on screen. I couldn't help but live the character by proxy - a perfect willing suspension of disbelief. Now I just need to lay my hands on some of Olivier’s classics and A Streetcar Named Desire by Elia Kazan to complete the picture of the debate. Wish me luck.
I have occupied myself lately with watching movies at a rate that would put many a movie buffs to shame. If I may, I have watched not less than 50 movies in the past one month. And that is indeed saying much considering I am a veritable student in a certain Well-known Institute of Management in Western India that is known for its academic rigor. The objective, you ask. C’est très simple. Strike out movies from the list of Top 250 Movies of All-Time on IMDB as soon as possible and claim the status of the undisputable king of movie buffs at WIMWI. Sounds weird, doesn’t it? But it seems this is the best possible raison d’être I could possess to enliven my stay in an otherwise insanely competitive and radically absurd educational institute that is a consummate exemplification of the pretentious and boisterous big bad world of business out there. Hmm… so I am back to being my old cynical self. Bon!!
Lately, I have been occupied by a thought. Who is the greatest actor to have graced the screen ever? Is it Sir Lawrence Olivier or Marlon Brando? It is said of the comparison, “Mr. Brando formed characterizations within himself, but Olivier built them from bits and pieces of others he found outside.” Now, I don’t particularly understand the whole Method Acting debate and all that talk about the Konstantin Stanislavski System and its American derivative, the Lee Strasberg System. And quite frankly, I am the last person to answer the question that if Coppola had decided on Sir Lawrence instead of Mr. Brando, how the world would have known Don Corleone. It is like asking what would have happened if Nazi Germany had won the Battle of Stalingrad. Ok, the analogy sucked. But who cares!
All said and done, Brando rocked in On the Waterfront, The Godfather and Last Tango in Paris. He truly weaved magic into his characterizations on screen. I couldn't help but live the character by proxy - a perfect willing suspension of disbelief. Now I just need to lay my hands on some of Olivier’s classics and A Streetcar Named Desire by Elia Kazan to complete the picture of the debate. Wish me luck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
