When You Stand Alone…

I had this recent tiff with a couple of friends wherein I noticed how some people in your life seem so different from others, the ‘normal people’. Normalcy is a belief induced by the society and how it conforms to the requirements of the state as such. The society we live, rather the societies, bare a semblance to each other. All of them seem to have a pattern. There are the respectable people, who differ in no aspects whatsoever, and move on to become philanthropists at some point. I’ll never understand that. And then there are the people who work everyday and lead lives with families and stuff like that. These are the people who seem to move the economy in which ever direction with their lucky strikes and occasional misgivings. And then, there are the youths and adolescents or whatever. This is a sample society. But now, some of the people you mix and move with, your peers, have the biggest influence on who you shape up to become. The variety we have today, given how these people in their turn are influenced by others and the global economic and socio political scenarios, is immense. Some smile at you, some frown for the same reasons. How does one decide for himself as to which is right and which is wrong? I don’t think you get what I’m saying here: the normalcy you come to assume for yourself, the person who you think you are, how you decide to fit into the society, is something of an enigma. With so many factors at play, I’m confounded as to how much the society lures into having a sense of belonging towards it. Why do people have this need to belong?

At so many different points of our lives, we make some important decision or the other. What these decisions are depends on the person. However, all the decisions are made with reference to some morals by which we have a want to abide. The personality development you will or will not have fostered also plays a noticeable role in these matters, but your personality in turn is driven by the need to belong. Why? Why is it that civilisation and the simultaneous evolution of the human mind establish one’s identity as a core requirement? Whenever you see someone, you develop an impression about that someone. If you were to meet the person again, you socialise with that person based on the impressions you have developed. Why again is my question? Why do we seem incapable of acting an absolute terms, on the terms of ‘what can be done’ and ‘what should be done’? Why is it that we let our inhibitions take over and, in all probability, ruin something that would have turned out to be perfect if left alone to act by itself?

I know some people might argue against these arguments of mine along the lines that our individuality, brought about by our perception of the world around us, is what sets us apart and makes life worth living. My answer is that, there is more to life than just living it. You simply don’t live because you can, but because you should. It feels like evolution has hit a wall, stand still, a stagnant phase, beyond which you simply refuse to move. Refusal is never an option. You either do, or you don’t. You don’t refuse for whatever reasons you may have. So, my doubt may be rephrased as:

1. What is the degree to which you can let your personality involve itself in your decisions?
2. If I say there is more to life than living it, then I mean it and believe in it. But how can it be made tangible in our lives? Do we already experience those aspects of our life that go beyond the delivery of purpose to it?

These things, I don’t think I’ll find out for myself for a long time. Because, for me, life has been very rocky and topsy-turvy. I’m sure someone or the other out there must have experienced the same things. The people we see around us everyday are living their own lives, but we tend to conform to the general consensus they build up. Why? We travel and explore so many other different cultures, and we come across so many newer people with newer values. But their society, in spite of being nurtured by a different state, seems to function the same way as yours. Why? The human mind is what sets us apart from the other animals on this planet, and this is because every mind has its own perception of the environment. However, we still seem to want to base our beliefs on the same values as others. Why? Is it because the environment is the same? But how can it be, for it depends on the different people who occupy it, the different societies that set them apart in clusters, the different states that shape the socio political scenario, and the different minds employed in visualising it. What is it then?

Abstractionism

The writer’s block has taken over me completely. This is not the first time this has happened, although I keep forgetting how I tackled it the last time. It inspires the worst of feelings to any writer: you find your mind goes blank, void of all relevant thoughts, and it also seems to have sapped your will to write. Words no longer flow as they should have, ideas seem frozen in time and incapable of propagation, and thoughts stagnate into an overwhelming lake. Your fingers go limp, no longer displaying the invigorating nimbleness that once caused your wrist to ache as you scribbled on and on. It’s a moment of deadness. You just discard the draft and move onto something else. But this time, I’m going to tackle it head-on. I can’t afford to go blank like this every time I think I’m onto something. And that is when I hit upon a way: to write of this writer’s block, to see what shape it grows into in my mind, to see what it can do to stop me from writing about itself!

The writer’s block doesn’t stop at wiping my mind of all activity. It develops into a grotesque form, probably like a gargoyle included in those landmarks of Gothic architecture, and drains what so ever I believe is relevant to the task at hand. If you think of it, it’s logic finds an analogous match with a type of electric forces in physics: they come to life only when the primary driving force acts on them. If you want a task to be done, the elements of activity resists a change in their original state of being and oppose this authoritarianism of sorts. The mind, institutionalised to being in certain phases pertaining to the form and clarity of thought at that point of time and space, refuse to conform to a need to fall in line with whimsical considerations per se. The writer’s block not only seeks to distract you from your tasks, but also blurs out the sources of your inspiration and inverts your localised philosophy; it is a subconscious response, the stimulus to which is a demand. Ultimately, the writer’s block will only strike you when you least expect it. As you build more confidence into your scripture, you open the gates to this little demon a sliver more.

Stumped?

However, by constantly keeping in mind the plausibility of hitting a dead end with wherever you’re going with whatever you’re possessing, makes you more aware of the possibility of indeed hitting a dead end. And it is only probable that you will! It is as a paradox: you think it will, and it does, for that is natural; you think it will not, but it does yet again, for you have implied that it should have! The writer’s block will not happen when you do not give thought to it at all in any of your preconsiderations while commencing your treatise. The moment you include it in your deliberations in any form, it will raise its hood. Probably like God: whther you’re a priest, an agnostic. or a fanatic, the principles of godliness will haunt you in your decisions. But when you’re an atheist, all your decisions, which may have imbued in them the signs of godliness, will not, however, reflect godliness. It’s like an abstract painting: you see what you want to see, but the moment you see what you never did want to, that which you have seen will remain in sight. It’s a horror movie: it will have the images stick in your head once you’re scared, but when you know it’s all a synthesised play of the images, you will be reminded of the artistic talents involved in making the movie to what it is. You shouldn’t know what’s going on in the background, for if you do, the illusion is lost!

And there goes my writer’s block! The sign of the cross, the name of the rose! The surrealistic style of writing has always inspired me to move on. I remember a comment left by Canadian author Cliff Burns left on my blog earlier: “I am often surprised as to what such attempts can yield…”. Surprising indeed! The circumnavigation of the block has always loomed as a good option: I try jumping to other ideas and other philosophies, but I always forget the block is rooted not in my thought, but in my thinking.