Self-search

Solitude and self-search go hand in hand. There is really no way that someone set to do some self-search won't be solitudinary. You can think of discovering oneself only after you have reduced yourself to just yourself, and not anybody else.

But solitude itself is only a facilitator, not a goal. I find that realization of self itself is an illusion. Its only through emotions and feelings how I might realise myself. Still there is no inherent truth in the realization of self per se. Self is formed of emotions which the mind has little control over. Self is not about truth. Denial of self is where the truth lies.

So, in a nutshell, self-search leads to solitude, solitude leads to introspection, and an honest introspection shall deny the self. This is not a contradiction. Niether the solitude nor the self, converge to cipher. Humans live with a mix of both. One who has completely denied the self, is above all pain and joy.

I am still not there yet, I think i am lonely, yet I feel as one with everyone; I might be in dilemmas within myself, but I am at peace with the world around me; I am lost in my own world, yet I find my way out in the world. I don't feel any sense of contradiction, for I have probably overcome a fundamental one.

a little something about myself

I have a very low self-esteem, and partly because of that, a very high level of tolerance.

Advantages-
1. It doesn't really hurt, if you call me a piece of shit.
2. I am not afraid of being honest, because I always got nothing to lose.
3. I feel like there is always space for development of myself. I can always improve myself, in whatever I do. I am kinda good at a lot of things I do, but not that good (or its my low self-esteem, i guess)

Disadvantages-
1. I feel that there is very little I can do to change the world. I feel weak, miserable, although only very few times.
2. I have no social status, and I really don't want to have one. I think a minimal being that I am, doesn't even deserve one. that actually causes me running away from social gatherings.

Back to square 1 (soliloquy)

After one complete year, I am at the same stage again - not able to decide what to do. I am trying for jobs but I know I am not trying for it whole-heartedly. I know that I won't be staying in a job for long. If I were a computer geek I would have been writing APIs, and seeking pleasure in the newer releases of Linux Kernel.

But I am confused - not knowing what to do, I've become an escapist in every facet of life. When I have to communicate the design to my team-mates, I act like a maverick movie director. When I am watching a movie, I want to make the rest of the people aware of my understanding of the Matrix. I want programmers to appreciate my movie taste, and movie-goers to appreciate my programming skills- I myself, don't know what i am best at.

If I knew, I would have pursued one thing and continued with it. But I don't. I know I love simulations, but I don't want to give my life to it yet; I am half-heartedly writing simulations, taking a sneak peek in the world and saying to myself "I could be getting more money, doing a job at amazon" Why not get out of this place, drive a convertible, party in Hawaii. What am I gonna get from simulations? There is technical work at amazon too...right?

Well, I need to understand that I am not the geek in amazon. I am not gonna make money by developing programs, not because I can't do it, but because I don't really like that job. Like I said, I would escape from it, for I am not in love with it. As much in the professional life as in my social life, I am still seeking the love of my life - the true wine that would be the last one I might like.

What do I do? Follow the same Geetha-jnana, try my best and be happy with what I get. Well, I know I can console myself with a few cigarettes and a few hours of chat. But I that can't be the end-goal - thats not what I want.

Notes on Classical History

The spread of Christianity in no way harmed the flourishing of pagan literature. Instruction in the universities (Rome, Milan, Carthage, Bordeaux, Athens, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria) was still based on rhetoric, and literature received the support of senatorial circles, especially in Rome (for example those of the Symmachi and the Nicomachi Flaviani). Latin literature was represented by Symmachus and the poet Ausonius. The last great historian of Rome was Ammianus Marcellinus, a Greek who wrote in Latin for the Roman aristocracy; of his Res gestae, the most completely preserved part describes the period from 353 to 378. The works of Sextus Aurelius Victor and Eutropius, who ably abridged earlier historical works, are fairly accurate and more reliable than the Scriptores historiae Augustae, a collection of imperial biographies of unequal value, undoubtedly composed under Theodosius but for an unknown purpose. Erudition was greatly prized in aristocratic circles, which, enamoured of the past, studied and commented on the classic authors (Virgil) or the ancestral rites (the Saturnalia of Macrobius). Greek literature is represented by the works of philosophers or sophists: Themistius, a political theoretician who advocated absolutism; Himerius of Prusias; and above all Libanius of Antioch, whose correspondence and political discourses from the Theodosian period bear witness to his perspicacity and, often, to his courage.

Script kiddos...

Once, I had a long discussion with some people on this topic. I was arguing that all Indian scripts must be written in one script- Roman, devanagari, Malayalam, Bengali or whatever, you make one up, if you find choosing one of 'em to be favoring a culture.

I don't really mind anyone being selected because except Tamil, most of these Indian scripts are very recent. Hence, the whole argument of preserving the age-old tradition with a script doesn't hold too strong.

Not only that these scripts are recent - the linguistic identity (which gives birth to strong regionalism in Indian states) is a very post-colonial influence. Those who had the chance to know about more than a language (and here, for example, I don't mean the ability to buy cigarettes from a bhaiya panwallah or comprehension of bollywood trash to be counted as knowledge of Hindi; I mean those have explored literature of two or more languages) would really appreciate this fact. There was Western style literature (novels, essays, articles) written before we came into the contact with West. It was all about poetry-religion, with the common people having no concern with the habit of reading/writing. Even writing letters was something that only high-class people did. Back then, not surprisingly, the choice of scripts wasn't too big a deal. A bunch of Brahmins or Buddhist monks, would start compiling some new stuff, and transfer that to their generations - and Voila! we got a new script launched. Even those people were not too picky about the scripts, not as half as the regionalists are in India these days.

Its just ridiculous to see that most Indian languages, write the same ka, kha, ga, gha in umpteen no. of ways, each with their own regional nationalistic justification "don't write in devanagari, we would loose our identity" As if our ancestors wanted 'ka' to be written only this particular twisted way. Yet another hypocrisy, I must say; yet another way how Indians only sanctify the culture instead of contributing to it, just the way British wanted them to be in 19th century. Do people have any idea how easy it becomes to learn other languages, if the script is common. On top of that does it not complicate matters for two languages to have different scripts, despite being very very similar? why disable people of reading other languages even if they know those langauges are so much the same?

Pakistan (like other Islamic nations except the turkey kinds) would write all their languages in Nastaliq. All European languages would be written in Roman (without anyone worrying how ) East Europeans are switching to Roman instead of Cyrillic- They all know that scripts are meant to spread knowledge- to make sure that it reaches more people. It really helps if everyone writes in the same script for the reasons a script is meant for.

Pardon my rants- i must admit that all this comes after someone like me knows to read > 10 scripts, but would always fail at achieving the same reading speed with all of them. It would help "big time" if bongs, Pakistanis, marathis, gujjus, punjabis(whatever little they write [;)]), bhaiyas(whatever trash they write) all write in one script.

On a lighter note, some scripts are "evil"- their characters are so pointed that its likely for most westerners to associate it with devil. Not that its a reason, but if you can go all English for globalization, why not just imbibe this little thing. Its natural...right? Why create a whole confusion? Imposition of a script on an evolving language is tantamount to bigotry- causing language enthusiasts like myself to suffer.

The script used for Urdu (nastaliq) is alright for most Hindi work. Its extended alphabet includes many of the letters which are not there in Arabic or Persian. The very basic sounds of Ta (as in tomato) and kha (as in khel, khana) - Its perfectly alright to invent new symbols in the target script (extend its alphabet to the source language) That is how Urdu evolved, not among the bigots and grammarians, but among the common people; it opened the locked doors in the people of North India; it made foreigners appreciate the beauty of the local languages, and the natives acquire a common language for a unified and uniform culture.

Where are we now? Why can't one further step be taken? Why is one script not extended to other languages. Instead, what folks are busy doing is to associate Urdu with Muslims... make them even more untouchable than it has increasingly become.

People need to inculcate love and feel for languages amongst themselves. I know that its really very antagonistic. One one hand, when everything is going English (and most Indian don't know crap about their own languages) the issues of linguistic identity become more important. You need not have read the great stuff in your local language, but you feel like extolling its marvel...its easier to that now, because you don't even happen to read it anymore, being busy with the English reading list. So, you would easily spot a bong, who never read a short story by Rabindranath, but would go ahead telling you how great he really was! Or even worse is this -you might know premchand was a great writer- but because you read his stories translated in English.


For this neo-rich metropolite class, I have no suggestions anyways. I think the real problem is that - the space for local languages in our lives is shrinking day by day. In that case, it really doesn't become feasible to think of a common language seeking base in local languages. What we have right now, instead, is some made-up crap to bolster our regional identity- which doesn't have to be necessarily meaningful. No wonder all local arts- literature in India is declining. At this rate, there would be no local languages 50 years from now.

What we could probably do is try to understand what Indian culture really means to us, and let it grow instead of containing it in our colonial prejudices.

end-game

My only contention with Ambedkarism is because Budhhism should not be interpreted as just a hindu-hating recalcitration. The pantheistic idea of gods among hindus (being illusory as Hindus themselves would agree) is more friendly to budhhism than assertion of a supreme God that rules us all. And when I say friendly, I don't mean that it is just a feeling of harmony. Instead, it is so that a Hindu doesn't have to face a social obstruction for moving to truth or the path Buddha took. His duties are not imposed by the Supreme, but are only dynamics of his society; he doesn't think that things go bad because of the devil's designs. Ideally, he knows that realization individual self is false, he knows that soul is a non-entity. Theoretically, the Hindu gods are not the instances of God either. There is a big difference between praying God and worshipping a god (mark the difference between pantheism and monotheism). It is for those reasons that I say Hinduism is not too much antagonistic to Buddhism. (and I am talking philosophy here)

I know that one can easily come up with instances in Chinese buddhism which contradict some of the things that modern Hindus have incorporated, but again Hindu is a medieval term, it is always incorrect to say that Buddhism came out of Hinduism, in the literal sense. On the top of that, I agree that practically we see things a lot different among hindus (than it should be according to Vedanta) but thats more because of political reasons in general than any proposed 'brahmin conspiracy' (or should we not be more just by putting brahmin conspiracy under political reasons rather than the essence of Hinduism) ?

Frankly, I have problems with the whole 19th century way of classifying Eastern religion as such, and trust me, I am not the only one. There are umpteen reasons why eastern religion (or eastern philosophy) should not be approached just by finding equivalents of a central scripture (bible/quran), a religious head (pope/ulema) – which I (like many others) think, would be inherently erroneous. Such an error is evident not just in the differences that a 19th century indologist would cite between buddhism or hinduism, but also in the classification of various 'sects' withing buddhism itself in the buddhist countries (comparing thailand or sri Lanka for instance)

Intrestingly, Jainism has enough reasons to curse Brahmins as much as anyone else. They have been assimilated manipulatively too. Jains would not submit to Vedanta (They never were adherent to Vedanta historically) but still the evil brahmin mind could gel them in. You would seldom find a Jain who would refuse to accompany a Hindu to a temple. After a few 19th century revivals, you would easily find Jains marrying so called Vedantists (or mainstream Hindus, might I say) too.

Honestly, with demise of Hinduism and buddhism in India and the onslaught of some chauvinistic confused revivals, I see more days of intellectual bankrupcy in India.

Nostalghia

My conscience wants vegetarianism to win over the world. And my subconscious is yearning for a piece of juicy meat. But what do I want?

Charlie Kauffman and the coffee shop

A u-turn I had taken in life once was to keep the faith in 'love' as a feeling. It was too corny of a confession but, I didn't mean the 'corny' way - I was just saying that you gotta acknowledge love, if you really can't deny it completely.

Actually, the way I wanted to say so was that I didn't feel the need for any human language to have to separate words for passion and love. They are so much the same; They both are made up by those unbridled feelings that the only drive that carries you. I am even sure there would a good enough statistical correlation between true lovers, and people passionate about something, anything.

Charlie Kauffman's movies actually helped in that assertion; some of them even changed the way I used to look at things. Not sure, if his movies would contribute to existentialism too but at least my interpretations would. In "adaptation" and more so in 'TESoASM' the idea of loving what you love is defended to its best, without having any expectations from what you love because thats what love is all about. It is, only if it is unrequited. If its not unrequited, it would be just an agreement. If its an agreement, you would find something to trade it for. So, it can't be love... i think that is right. You gotta love few things in life, and love them with no expectations (the last one was from software design, not from existentialism nor kauffman)

What I think of Indian commies...

WB commies are not surviving in Bengal because of the supremacy of their ideology, but because of their experience in harboring pro-bengali sentiments since a long time back. People go and vote for WB commies because its portrayed as a bengali party. Leaders from all other parties in Bengal would be adequately branded foreign and hostile to Bengal, by these marxists. The lower world of criminals and union-leaders is so strong and interlinked, that almost no free political thought can take hold in Bengal. The Bengal of British times, seems to be 'gone with the Raj'.

Ironically enough, these so-called Marxists, exercise all nasty machiaveliian political tactics, expoiting the very malpractices in Indian society, which their intellectuals are found tirading against. In the villages of bengal, the new untouchables are those who don't support CPI. Its the same play goin' on in Bengal, where marxists have just changed the names of the characters, to give this whole game a humanitarian edge, or probably to hybridize marxist socialism and Bengali identity into their own kinda communism.

I would say leftists in India don't have an ideology. They have to save their butt by being a good regional party. Throughout all their history, from the intellectuals to the leaders, they have always said what the indian educated class wants them to say. At times, they have even ridiculously changed stances, like in the time of world war. They remain nothing more than whores of elitism, controlled by big business houses, but still trying to sell their ideas of socialistic justice, reflected nowhere in their own actions. If they represent anything in india, its only the bankrupcy of ideas and hypocrisy.
delete

my rant on religion

do unto others as you would they do unto you.

This ethic is based on individuality, and the ablilty of an individual to make choices that seemingly govern his fate. To be frank, this has roots in an existing christian ethic. In this particular case, existence of an individual has to be assumed. Since hindu/buddhists don't believe in individual entity, it really doesn't make sense to govern their ethics on this rather than the fatalistic notion of karma.

The reason why atheism has been as vain, as any other theism [on a rational ground] is that it can't really detach itself from either cultural or philosophical norms rooted in other religions. In this ethic, for example, the regular individuality is assumed. So, on one hand, where this can help people detach themselves from church, on the other, it doesn't really give them a belief system very different from one based in christianity.

These atheists can remove the religion, like they adequately have by separating state and church. But then, saying that all what church has given to world is irrationality in superstition, is difficult for its denial of the fact that the work culture everyone works in is governed by the puritan work ethic; or the fact that the ideals of freedom of individual, equality are mere post-renaissance reformulations of 'God lies in everyone's heart' against the earlier times when 'king deified was god'

Point being - every ethics is governed by a certain philosophy, and before philosophy was separated from church, religion was the sole contributor to philosophy. Since philosophy can't be denied yet, nor can its basis in a certain religion. isliye bachchon, thhoda religion padh lo
delete

Saying that [i]moral and spiritual aspects of all religions are at their core identical, when the religions themselves are so different[/i] is wrong too.At least the moral aspects of Hindu-budhhist religions are completely different from judaist ones, in the very essence, from belief in an individual's soul to 'duty' of an individual. Budhhits/hindus don't believe in individual soul, and their notion of dharma is very different from 'duty' of an individual too.

That all religions are same is generally said, I think, to point out that every religion was meant to administer people, tell people not to fight each other, stay happy and cool, blah blah blah. However, it doesn't make sense, because you're saying that current form of ethics was the hidden motive of ancient religions, which of course, is a self-satisfied argument. Most of the religions were removed/changed adequately to fit certain standards through history. I don't really see why the essence of all religions should be considered same, when they were so strongly motivated to end each other, both in idea and material. What is the common essence, in that case?

The argument that religion is just about imposing a certain morality is not ture either. Philosophy has been the main course of all religions. Religion didn't start in India for instance, because some romanticist brahmins crafted a system where everyone would be happy. It was only a philosophical quest that started religion, to justify/understand whats right or wrong. So, was it for most of the philosophers all over the world Greece-Rome-Mesopotamia... Pagans' cultural traditions were removed, but the philosophical tradition was cherished, even by christians and muslims. Because of the inherent re-ordering after the spread of chrisitanity, there are still a lot of conflicting beliefs in the religion, which translates into a lot of philosophical debate on morals in our times. for example,

1- Belief in soul, is orignially not a christian concept. Greeks were the ones who believe in it. A jehovah witness for example won't believe in soul, on grounds of its absence in the revealed scriptures. Christian belief being a melange of a lot of faith, does have this concept as its central belief, however.

2- Likewise, belief in atman, and not soul is an essential part of hindu-buddhist religion. Most of the hindus don't know that.

3- Most of the pagan traditions of Roman Catholic church are because of the roman empire. The pope for example, served only as a substitute for roman pontiffs, pretty much antagonistic to the idea that divinity can't be in a mortal. Greeks-Romans form the heart of western epistemology, the reason why later, it strengthened itself to get separated from church; the latter having once suppressed the former.

East is East

Since I didn't have anything to post right now :)

For a westerner to understand Eastern religion(s), I think, the best way to start with would be grasping certain Western writers with pantheistic approach (or perversions?). They've existed over time, and have always wanted to say, though in a suppressed tone, that God might be inherent in the surroundings, constituted in the environment, and not someone allpowerful-separate-purest away from our world.

God is not a being, but rather a law, diffused through everything as a divine principle. Thus, for him there does not exist a personal god, just as there does not exist any personal immortality.
-L. Tolstoy

And then try to imagine that the Eastern religion started with the very assertion that God is constituted in the nature. The idea that God created the world that we reside in is not how religion in the East started. It was based on the concept that He resides in the continuum of the creation, and keeps changing itself every moment, at every instant of time. That voice of pantheism is heard aloud in Eastern religion(s), reverberating in the Sanskrit chants, or the Pali quotes. The way to reach God includes your love for nature, your parents, and probably much more. So, even the animal sacrifices and ancestral worship were compatible with the Eastern religion, if not, a direct consequence of Eastern philosophy. There is even a god for violence and retribution.

Because of this inherent value of tolerance in there, the religion in East never showed any eagerness to spread a truth that was seen by a few; and so it didn't have to destroy statues of Nature's worship, neither did it associate the numerous (practically infinite) pagan gods with Devil, nor did it replace the pagan worship of goddesses with a more solemn and integrated one. Worship itself was a not so serious business; it was constituted in what Rumi (a Muslim Persian poet, with pantheist perversions) calls a 'sweet blasphemy’

In fact, taking religion in a literal sense, there was never such thing as religion in East either. There were practices, traditions. dharma (sans) or “dhamma” (Pali) doesn’t translate very well as ‘religion’ in English. It is one word for duty and religion. Duty here, however, isn’t governed by a scripture, or a set of rules. All what is said is that what you do is what makes you; what you are is because of what you did in past lives. There is never an external entity defined, which governs this process, nor an exact way, which has to be followed. Once you feel yourself to be part of the nature, then doing good for yourself, would mean doing good to everyone. Accordingly, Hurting others, hurts yourself, not because it’s a sin that you would be punished for, but because the one you hurt constitutes ‘you’. That is what they call Karma.

Duck Pond!

Education

road not taken

"To think that I am not going to think of you anymore is still thinking of you. Let me then try not to think that I am not going to think of you."

Raincoat - a review

Raincoat was such a disappointment to me.

Here is a small review of the 'latest' hindi movie I watched:

First of all, I am sorry that the great director's first work in Hindi cinema is not quite upto the mark. I watched 5-6 movies by rituporno (starting from unishe april to this one) and this one turned out to be the crappiest one. I personally would have liked this to be a play rather than a movie. A movie-screenplay with dialogue between two people going on for such a long time could have been worked upon. (But then, I am not considering the fact of reaching a limited audience with theatre in India.)

The bong way of looking at Hindi is one which regards Hindi as the language of biharis; This, like in most of his other works, is adequately expressed in the movie ('such' characters do speak hindi in his bengali movies) In the movie, since aish and devgan are from Darbhanga (a place in Bihar), their language has to be Hindi. But I don't think aish can ever appreciate that. Annu kapoor has taken the required accent and air quite appropriately. Devgan is matured, but one can only dream that Aish would become an actress, some day.

The following description has spoilers:

Like it is with most artists from the Kali-worshipping Bengal, the protagonists gotta be female[;)] This movie presents dreams and wishes of a girl, brought up in an environment where marrying a rich guy is the only way to have 'em materialized. What follows in the movie is a shattered dream, and horrors in a house-wife born out of disconnection from the real world. Aish iterates her fear of 'bathroom mein qaed ho jana'. Her drawing room is full of antique furniture that doesn’t belong to her. Her reality, is not about being 'a rich woman', something that she wanted to be as a young woman, something that she still wants everyone to believe, even her first-love. Her reality instead limits herself to a bathroom, which she is fearful of getting locked in (reason why she won't go in an airplane)

But then, devgans got his share too, although less highlighted. This is not the movie where young-man's frustration would be vented out the usual Hindi cinema way. Devgan, is weak, failed, and jaded. (He is found weeping in bathroom in the movie.) He gives up to emotions, and so, carrying impact of his failed first-love, he is presented as someone who needs support.


The climax of the movie takes off from O Henry's ' gift of magi' (Henry is thankfully mentioned in the credits). Raincoat is the carrier of gifts that the one-time lovers gave to each other, both pretending to be able to afford the gift. Raincoat, indeed, has its symbolism. Rituporno's overall idea of the movie is good, but he has not been able to convert it to a good movie. No one can attribute this to a language/culture barrier. Best of the best Hindi movies were directed by bongs afterall ;)

This movie is not for you if you think that Hindi movies shouldn't be doing anything except Shaadi-vaala band baaja, having nice time with the family-members visiting India, hoggin' and dancin' in big groups etc. This director is not subhash ghai or some chopra-vopra; He is an artist and he thinks his work ought to be reflective.

At last, two things:

1. I am not 100% sure that aish has become rituporno's muse or something. Can anyone enlighten me?
2. The mumbai - crowd I watched the movie with, suggested the movie should have been called bathroom. Whats your say?

Sem starts

Here it comes again, ... the beginning of a new semester.

New courses, new goals, new learnings ... and all that crap. Thats whats goin'on these days. Ever prof promises that his/her course is gonna transform things. Actually, not really, its my over-excitement which takes the prof's explanations that way.

Anyways the sem started, and I am still watching movies at evenings. You know what, I've been watching one movie a day since a few weeks back. It was a sorry movie that I watched today- Osama, not because it was poorly made or something (although the direction and cinemato could improve) but because it don't mean shit.

These "artists" sitting over their asses in Middle-East or India, are alien to the local people themselves. I say sitting on 'their asses' to emphasize that they have little connection with the beliefs of their own people themselves. As artists, they are running some colonial institution that British established some time back. The "local" people they are supposed to represent don't give a shit to what these people do. Art is seen a free and self-less act of human being, something that reflects and represents what humanity feels. But all that makes sense to the Western world. From the western world, its an excellent endaviour of mankind; Like I said, its introspective "to" the Western world, and the point I am trying to make is that these "artists" in the oriental world, stand for Western introspection. They are there to tell Westerners what they wish to understand. "Art" in the middle-East or India, the one which gets "international recognition", is merely a filter for the West. There is no reason why it shouldn't be that, and I am not gonna start a revolution against what Westerners do. My struggle is against what local people do. These so-called artists never condescend to understand their own people, don't try to understand what they believe in or what they wish to do?

Like in this movie Osama or any other such media, the "free" artist goes on criticizing Islam and its evils. Well, how many muslims give a damn to these people? Meet Mr. Rushdie, who got 'fatwa'(practically, it means shoot-on-sight) from Islamic clerics. Its agreed that Rushdie is an excellent writer (he, sure is) and a great observer but what does he do to transform what "his" people think? rien de tout! He got "popular" by swearing Muhammad and looking down upon the state of "poor" muslims, and after getting fatwa, is now sitting over his ass in UK, under "safe" umbrella of the champions of freedom, which colonialized the rest of the world till the middle of last century. What does freedom mean to Muslims? Did anyone try to know?

Well, some did - We know that Rushdie did and this is what he found - following Islam itself is against freedom!... To think freely, you gotta forget doing Islam (or follow tradition the fanstastic way Hindus do...keep religion to a corner in their homes, and eat-drink-sleep English everywhere else) To such people, its probably only a misery of some muslim if he/she can't appreciate that premarital sex is merely an expression of freedom. The fact is that most muslims miss to get the "freedom" because they think that taking freedom the Western way would lead to perdition of all moral values. The fear of 'women-hunting-for-sex' alone is a "reason" strong enough for most muslims to make them stick to the medieval rules. .... The suppressed sexuality, the arabic verses of Quran, and not ratiocination is their way to truth. They fear not of freedom but its expression as Westernization. Nobody thinks about the need of freedom in their world; not even these so-called artists. Its the same ideas they want to get; but the lack of channels (social psychological communication) in the colonial world makes them want to hire the benefits of Western institutions, without the acceptance of West, in philosophy. If the 'art' was responsible, this problem won't have arised. People would have realised that individualism, equality, individual-freedom are bases of the Western-culture. Getting benefits of industrialization and denial of individual freedom can't go hand in hand. There is no way the colonial world is gonna understand that, and you know what! nobody cares! The Westernization continues...with wierd oppositions! and the West thinks these people don't at all want to be free !!!


Fuck that! I gotta study...there are these two courses I have taken. Probably I would watch couple'a more movies this week.

Les Triplettes de Belleville

English

I won’t finish my life in Timbuktu
Cheeks so tight my lips are turning blue
I'd like to be wrinkled
Utterly wrinkled
Wrinkled like a Triplet from Belleville

Don’t want to wind my days in Acapulco
Stiff as a board dancing tango-tango
I'd love to be twisted
Utterly twisted
Twisted like a Triplet from Belleville
(Come on Girls!)

Refrain:
Swinging Belleville rendez-vous
Marathon dancing doop dee doop
Vaudou Cancan balais taboo
Au Belleville swinging rendez-vous

I won’t be an old man in Singapore
Playing scrabble and eating petits-fours
I want to be wicked,
Utterly wicked,
Wicked like the Triplets from Belleville

I don’t want to end my life in Honolulu
Singing like a bird in an ormolu
I want to be as rough
Every bit as rough
Rough, rough as a Triplet from Belleville

Refrain

I won’t finish my days in Miami Beach
Sweating my heart stalking like an old bitch
I’d like to be flying (Hop!)
Utterly flying (Hop! Hop!)
Flying like a Triplet from Belleville

Don’t mind ending my life in Katmandu
Signing with a sitar and a guru
But I’d prefer to be
Much prefer to be
Swinging with the Triplets from Belleville
(Come on Girls!)

Refrain + Solo + Refrain

French
J'veux pas finir mes jours à Tombouctou
La peau tirée par des machines à clous
Moi je veux être fripée
Triplement fripée
Fripée comme une Triplette de Belleville

J'veux pas finir ma vie à Acapulco
Danser toute raide avec des gigolos
Moi je veux être tordue
Triplement tordue
Balancée comme une Triplette de Belleville
(Allez les filles!)

Refrain:
Swinging Belleville rendez-vous
Marathon dancing doop dee doop
Vaudou Cancan balais taboo
Au Belleville swinging rendez-vous

J'veux pas finir ma vie à Singapour
Jouer au dico manger des petits fours
Moi j'veux être zidiote
Triplement zidiote
Gondolée comme une Triplette de Belleville

J'veux pas finir ma vie à Honolulu
Chanter comme un zoiseau ça n'se fait plus
Je veux ma voix brisée
Triplement brisée
Swinguer comme une Triplette de Belleville

Refrain

J'pourrai finir ma vie à Katmandou
C'est bien plus doux de faire des rimes en “dou“
Mais je veux être givrée (Hop!)
Triplement Givrée (Hop Hop!)
Et swinguer comme les Tripletes de Belleville
(Allez les filles!)

Refrain + Solo + Refrain

Ah...the blues !

I just found myself improvising over the major blues scale. And hours passed by... Wonder why hadn't earlier come across this scale.

The weakness of being plagued by one's own dreams

This helplessness, this restlessness would never let me be in peace. What can be done to people who are at war with themselves, who support and oppose themselves, all the time?

In this movie Cinema Paradiso, the natural emotion is to cry when Salvatore 'Toto' wathces the clips his friend had given him as a last gift. I don't know why do we cry seeing that? Crying on your own love? Don't we end up loving just an image of someone in our mind, rather than the person itself, when falling in love. We can't accept someone in 'flesh' to abuse that image. We want to love the image, forever.

But whats the solution? Well, everyones got his own. Some people are strong enough to change the image or completely efface the 'beautiful' image and ideas they keep in their hearts. Others still cherish those, thinking that this is what makes them human, fearful of getting devoid of all feelings, if there is no 'love' one has. Sadly, i belong to the latter category, trying too hard to compromise with the world, but failing badly all the time...

World is full of failed love stories; where people gave their hearts, and promised to die for each other. But only some time later, the circumstances made them give it up. They are not 'happy' doing that, and they don't stay happy all the time, but they have to do it, for it was 'practical' in the given circumstances. Why does the unconscious not give it up to the conscious? ... Later, they try to hate each other, just to preserve the image which they love in their hearts, just to distance the persons from hearts, who seemed close to the images at some time, but seem filled with enmity right now. This hatred is artificial, completely made-up, just to keep oneself at peace. Thankfully, the animal instinct of not being able to see a your love with someone else, helps to aggravate the hatred, create the distance from the person. We go on loving the hatred we made up, putting charges from betrayal to promiscuity on the one we once loved.

The first woman that comes in one's lives does always the same thing. May be the first love should never fail, for it leaves such a scar that gets reopened everytime one wants to see his past. Wish it were true that... Its true that first love is just a flow of emotions sans practicality, but then that is the only point where you were ready to compromise anything and be ready for whatever may come. After that, once you have learned to compromise with the image in your heart, nothing remains for 'love'. Love does have no 'realistic' significance; its a 'pure' emotion. Once compromised, it remains just a spur of emotions driven by needs, not at all a purpose one wants to die for. I wish everyone could live that purpose. I wish I could do that...

We are an advanced civilisation. Aren't we? Why does this culture not give space to emotions of human beings? Why does this fucking mind think so much of things in the 'long-run' to make such decisions which keep emotions at the bottom ? Are those images in our hearts really, so alien?

Downtown, DC

Art Gallery, Constitution Ave, DC

Wow !!

Walking down the Constitution Ave, DC

Ronald reagan building, DC