Other than their set definitions and meanings, words, numbers, colours and objects tend to carry a signification beyond their immediate and felt denotations. People usually attribute feelings and memories to particular places, people, animals, etc. These subjective associations can be applied to things as common and ordinary as hunger and thirst.
Hunger and thirst are two natural and perfectly normal feelings. Yet, when they are used in a metaphorical context, for me they become charged with different connotations: hunger is out of greed, thirst out of need. To me it feels that to be hungry for something is a selfish act, an act of wanting; wanting to satisfy a personal and selfish desire. To be thirsty, on the other hand, arises out of needing; a need pure and passionate.
This does not mean that thirst has superiority over hunger, or that hunger is a vice. Only that these feelings have their specific applications. Hunger can be associated with things such as knowledge, career, and personal growth; it becomes synonymous with ambition; whereas for love, feelings and people, thirst, I believe, is more appropriate. Thus their priority and virtue lie in their application and not in their specific nature.
I know that what I have described may seem a little strange at first sight; it felt strange to myself when I first thought about it! But when I looked closer at things around me I realised that I have similar feelings about a lot of things: I try to ‘subjectify’ the objective world to make better sense of it. I think this is true for many people.
On thinking about the relation between subjectivity and objectivity, I have come to believe that perhaps our different viewpoints, beliefs and interpretations of the most objective of things, come as a result of the subjectivity of our objectivity! But then again...this is my personal and subjective opinion!
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
A Fairy Tale
Once upon a time in a far away land, there lived a beautiful princess who…
this is how to start a fairy tale, but what I’m about to tell you is no fairy story; it’s the grim tale of real life. It all started…
Well, it doesn’t really matter where or how it started and the funny thing is I don’t know how it’ll end so the only thing left is how things are now and that’s where I’ll start off from. Yet it seems to me that to grasp the present is always the hardest part, for most of the time we don’t know what it is until it passes and becomes something which once was and shall never be again. It is what always escapes us; that which rarely is and yet always was. What a paradox!
It is always easier to talk about the past, it’s so certain, no doubts about it. Even its doubts and uncertainties will matter little, for it’s only the past and of little consequence. And even the future might seem more tangible and felt than what is already at hand. It can be a delicious illusion to indulge in and most of the time it is.
Time is fluid. Perhaps it’s this fluidity which makes it possible to overlook the present, to the extent that we may even forget it at times and slip into daydreams about what is to come or reveries of what might have been. And all this time the present escapes us, passes over our life, like a shadow drifting so swiftly into the past. And by the time we come to realise what is presently at hand, it may be already too late and we are left with regrets over what we might have had, had we paid more attention to the reality of time and the present situation; which reminds me: wasn’t I telling a story?!
this is how to start a fairy tale, but what I’m about to tell you is no fairy story; it’s the grim tale of real life. It all started…
Well, it doesn’t really matter where or how it started and the funny thing is I don’t know how it’ll end so the only thing left is how things are now and that’s where I’ll start off from. Yet it seems to me that to grasp the present is always the hardest part, for most of the time we don’t know what it is until it passes and becomes something which once was and shall never be again. It is what always escapes us; that which rarely is and yet always was. What a paradox!
It is always easier to talk about the past, it’s so certain, no doubts about it. Even its doubts and uncertainties will matter little, for it’s only the past and of little consequence. And even the future might seem more tangible and felt than what is already at hand. It can be a delicious illusion to indulge in and most of the time it is.
Time is fluid. Perhaps it’s this fluidity which makes it possible to overlook the present, to the extent that we may even forget it at times and slip into daydreams about what is to come or reveries of what might have been. And all this time the present escapes us, passes over our life, like a shadow drifting so swiftly into the past. And by the time we come to realise what is presently at hand, it may be already too late and we are left with regrets over what we might have had, had we paid more attention to the reality of time and the present situation; which reminds me: wasn’t I telling a story?!
Saturday, June 13, 2009
A 'Creature" Named Iran!
Taking Iran as an organism, I would have to say that Iran is somewhat a mythical creature for it’s not just ONE creature on its own but rather made up of some.
In its outer layer alone one can describe it as being two distinctively different creatures. When observed from afar it can be either a monster or something as opposing as a fairy, all depending on your perspective. If you are all friend determined on seeing nothing but goodness then the fairy will appear to you and if you are all foe then the monster becomes very much visible.
But if you are willing to take a closer look with the eyes of a critical observer then the appearance changes altogether. For upon a closer inspection you will notice that Iran is neither of these alone, but a mixture. On the one hand it claims to have left much evil behind and be on the road to glory and harmony. Yet, on the other hand it encounters so many evils on its path so as to make the onlooker unsure of the road it is to take next. There is a human side to it as well as a monstrous one and so the most important thing is to decide on the side which would prevail in the end. But it is no easy matter to simply fix on one or the other. If the evils which it encounters on its way are seen as a consequence of its actions and decisions, then doom is inevitable for surely the “monster” is leading the way to self-destruction. But what if the hardships and the trouble are taken to be as natural phenomena it should face on its way to power, glory and victory? Will that not help to consider this yet unknown creature with more sympathy than it is now awarded?
And therefore, on observing the ambiguity with which it is connected, you are likely to see the uncertainty of its current state such that it will leave you with a feeling of indecision as to a complete determination of its full nature.
In its outer layer alone one can describe it as being two distinctively different creatures. When observed from afar it can be either a monster or something as opposing as a fairy, all depending on your perspective. If you are all friend determined on seeing nothing but goodness then the fairy will appear to you and if you are all foe then the monster becomes very much visible.
But if you are willing to take a closer look with the eyes of a critical observer then the appearance changes altogether. For upon a closer inspection you will notice that Iran is neither of these alone, but a mixture. On the one hand it claims to have left much evil behind and be on the road to glory and harmony. Yet, on the other hand it encounters so many evils on its path so as to make the onlooker unsure of the road it is to take next. There is a human side to it as well as a monstrous one and so the most important thing is to decide on the side which would prevail in the end. But it is no easy matter to simply fix on one or the other. If the evils which it encounters on its way are seen as a consequence of its actions and decisions, then doom is inevitable for surely the “monster” is leading the way to self-destruction. But what if the hardships and the trouble are taken to be as natural phenomena it should face on its way to power, glory and victory? Will that not help to consider this yet unknown creature with more sympathy than it is now awarded?
And therefore, on observing the ambiguity with which it is connected, you are likely to see the uncertainty of its current state such that it will leave you with a feeling of indecision as to a complete determination of its full nature.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
I Have an Ocean of Dreams
I have an ocean of dreams
In which I bathe
Everyday
And from which
I catch a fish or two
Now and then;
I have a river of desires
Which runs and runs
Wild and free
And crosses deserts of serenity
Until it rests in Eternity;
I have a forest of mysteries
In which I walk
From Morning to Night
And through its trees
I will see the Sun
When the Day is come;
I have mountains of pain and passion
With summits of joy
And valleys of sorrow
Which I climb and descend
Everyday;
I have a garden of thoughts
In which I plant seeds and flowers
In spring and summer
And in autumn and winter;
And I have a world of hope
Which I furnish
Everyday
With an ocean deep
And a river wide
And a forest dense
And mountains high
And a garden green.
In which I bathe
Everyday
And from which
I catch a fish or two
Now and then;
I have a river of desires
Which runs and runs
Wild and free
And crosses deserts of serenity
Until it rests in Eternity;
I have a forest of mysteries
In which I walk
From Morning to Night
And through its trees
I will see the Sun
When the Day is come;
I have mountains of pain and passion
With summits of joy
And valleys of sorrow
Which I climb and descend
Everyday;
I have a garden of thoughts
In which I plant seeds and flowers
In spring and summer
And in autumn and winter;
And I have a world of hope
Which I furnish
Everyday
With an ocean deep
And a river wide
And a forest dense
And mountains high
And a garden green.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Cycles of History
From what I remember about history there seems to be a pattern concerning the rise and fall of nations, empires and political entities. This pattern seems to me to be true for almost any and all societies that have existed throughout history. First, we have the rise followed by its propagation as a result of conquering and destroying neighbouring, competing or major empires that might exist at that time. Then after some time the empire for various reasons weakens and either completely falls to be replaced with a new one or loses its prominence and power. I think this is exactly what happened when the Islamic empire was first created. This was also the case with the Roman Empire with the advent of Christianity, and later the Muslim empire ended or weakened as a result of internal events.
This is what I understand to be happening: empires come to exist either as religious states, i.e. Christianity and Islam, or as politically constituted entities. The latter, which in a way contributes to the rise of a religious world but is not its primary cause, is what we have and have had before and after religious empires. What I mean is that the Islamic and Christian worlds had their transcendent beliefs as their primary cause, but other empires such as the Roman or Persian or Indian empires were all mere political entities, with religion playing little role in their existence. Even now we can see that happening today in our time. We no longer have empires or religious worlds, they have been replaced by countries and nations which again only have political foundations; Ancient empires have changed into countries constantly battling for world power.
I know you would here say that we still have the Muslim world. But I think that this world exists in spirit, not as a unified whole for as I said the politically founded countries have replaced it. Since both Islam and Christianity are based on transcendent beliefs which go beyond nations and countries, they continue to exist and have power over the world as they have penetrated into the lives of people, but they do not have the political power behind them that once had made empires. I cannot say that they will never again have that power. For it is quite possible that one day all nations will unite, though I do not what the underlying unifying power will be.
This is what I understand to be happening: empires come to exist either as religious states, i.e. Christianity and Islam, or as politically constituted entities. The latter, which in a way contributes to the rise of a religious world but is not its primary cause, is what we have and have had before and after religious empires. What I mean is that the Islamic and Christian worlds had their transcendent beliefs as their primary cause, but other empires such as the Roman or Persian or Indian empires were all mere political entities, with religion playing little role in their existence. Even now we can see that happening today in our time. We no longer have empires or religious worlds, they have been replaced by countries and nations which again only have political foundations; Ancient empires have changed into countries constantly battling for world power.
I know you would here say that we still have the Muslim world. But I think that this world exists in spirit, not as a unified whole for as I said the politically founded countries have replaced it. Since both Islam and Christianity are based on transcendent beliefs which go beyond nations and countries, they continue to exist and have power over the world as they have penetrated into the lives of people, but they do not have the political power behind them that once had made empires. I cannot say that they will never again have that power. For it is quite possible that one day all nations will unite, though I do not what the underlying unifying power will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)