The other side of window

Gleaming star

through the window, 

there comes a

reminder of past -

a past we never witnessed

and the past we all caress.  

The one we never witnessed

is ablaze and morbid.

Burning gases, explosions,

galactic events, black holes,

and things swirling around.

Galaxies forming, ageing,
traveling, merging, and dying. 

Life and death were in unity.

After million years, we evolved -

moved, conquered, and thought.

We thought, spoke, and debated -

ideas of life and death were created.

We shaped meanings for life -

study well, get job, and find a wife.

A universe was bred to give life a worth -

we embraced and abused our mother Earth.

We even made-up cycles of life and death-

soul, God, to not be afraid of holding our breath.

That star teases you

and tells you all this.

It says to you to accept

unity of life and death.

You reject it outright.

But you won't stop

glancing fondly over it.

You look at it

to see another past-

a past that's true

within realms of life

yet parochial since 

all it has is life.

This past, we all caress,

is wistful and recurring.

Big dreams, hard efforts,

buses, taxis, trains, flights 

to go somewhere you belong.

These journeys set you fleeting,

maturing, finishing, and repeating.

All journeys share a common thing: a window.

A window, beside you, made of glass

which you didn't open to listen to star.

You saw something else in that star -

your dreams, greed, and your scar.

You fancied success while touring in cars-

you abused trees, animals, and flowers.

O Lord! Now you want to travel galaxies-

find and start living with alien species.

Some of you might travel across space-

age slower, become star, and an advanced race.

Now you as a star

tease us.

You ask us 

to sit beside window.

We reject it ouright.

But we won't stop

glancing fondly over you.

We look at you,

to see a past-

a past that's true

in realms of spacetime

not parochial since

it's beyond life.

We were all stars,

morbid and ablaze.

We got life

and we traveled space.

We became stars

and we shall always remain.

Tangled

Aimlessly walking, treading pointlessly.

Randomised turns, roads returned.

Loops formed, garbled loops.

I know the junctions I met you.

We explored, walked Paris.

You laughed, jested along.

I agreed, disagreed along.

I know the junctions I kissed you.

What's special in those junctions?

Is life a story of junctions?

Do junctions tell you something?

(Junctions put label on relationships:

every anniversary is a milestone,

not every moment is a milestone).

Some moments die after taking birth,

some places are empty for you,

each memory is a star in stardust,

each junction is a point in space.

Can you create stardust from stars?

Can you create space from points?

You can't and you don't bother.

Roads were tangled and will remain.

We were tangled and will remain.

We created junctions when we met.

We cherish junctions till our death.


---
The view I have is that of strong memories which keep coming back to our mind and how our infinite sea of subjective experiences is nothing but a set of few junction points that we cherish again and again. Roads and lives are tangled but only junctions give them some meaning and direction. Junction sort of simplify the tangledness. 

Words and puzzles

Moon is the rock
in which I find her
talking to me
through an echo.

Clouds of oblivion,
come, stay, and go.

Dog barks at me
as if I am a ghost.

Driver honks at me
when I walk in middle
of this road.

A force is pulling me,
too mild, but I feel
that it can lift me off.

Moon, clouds, dog, driver, force
is a short story like those
pieces of puzzles.
They can never connect
unless you know their contexts.

Even if you know contexts,
they are mine not yours.

They can be yours if you trust me.
Find me, talk to me,
ignore dogs, ignore drivers.
Lift up, sail through clouds,
come to me, come to me.

--
A very linear way of explaining what I mean by each logo-centric word in a disjointed subjective context. Then, one can connect those subjective pieces to form a meaning. But even then, those meanings might not be understood completely due to subjective differences between reader and writer. The last attempt of writer is to summarise the story by making the reader as writer and writer as the beloved in his story. 

Meditation and Spring

Each and every attempt
to pedal this tinted bike
feels like an attempt
to drive through florid airstrike.

Each airstrike has an old thought,
buried deep down inside brain,
and it randomly emerges out
while cycling in this springy rain.

Each rain blooms these flowers
of neurons falling down on tree.
The wind spreads hues from flowers
and brain toils for another spree.

Each spree focuses on fresh breath
going in and out of the nose.
The goal is to paint brief death
to flowers, when the air flows.

Each flow repeats the cycle
of cycling, wind, and breath.
The whole idea is to be idle,
to not fail is to grant death.

Each death is an entry to a world:
where hues and tints fills the space,
they are present but not unfurled,
each sec is an idle spring of solace.

Sans ideas, Sans emotions, Sans desires

Sans ideas, Sans emotions, Sans desires 

Ideas thrive us, 

Emotions drive us, 

Desires connive us.

Can you imagine a world 

without them? 

Ideas fix our hearts, 

Emotions fuel our hearts, 

Desires fool our hearts. 

Imagine a world  

without them. 

A world where:  

you don’t let other ideas 

sway your creativity; 

you don’t let your emotions 

set your destiny; 

you don’t let your desires 

steer your psyche. 

To create a world 

without them, 

you should: 

Forgo your memory, 

to shun other ideas; 

Evade the transiency, 

to shun your emotions; 

Know your biology 

to shun your desires.

A world without them 

is a world of: 

an erased history   

and memory of its specie,  

an everlasting permanency 

of state which certainly  

puts uncertainty on duality 

of your mind and body. 

If you accept duality, 

you should use mind  

to control your body. 

If you reject duality, 

then you should bind 

this unity with everybody  

around you. 

The first proposition,  

of controlling your body  

has to do with externality, 

i.e. desires imprinted by  

things around you 

which is logically  

equal to  

the second proposition. 

This whole quest for 

everlasting permanency  

finally boils down to  

bringing a unity. 

A unity between your  

mind-body unity 

and the externality. 

It seems there is only 

one way to bring this unity 

which is to: 

forgo the literal sense of “I”, 

sky is you, you are sky, 

fly is you, you are fly, 

There is no you, 

There is no “I” 

There is no fly 

There is no sky 

Everything is,  

simply, 

a unity. 

On the nature of love, life, and partnerships

The objective of this post is to establish a connection between love, life, and partnership. No doubt, they are trivial topics to discuss but sometimes, beautiful concepts and ideas emerge out of simple things. I will begin by stating three conceptually (and seemingly) disjoint statements:

S1: The factual knowledge of world is acquired by treating subject (observer) and object (the thing which is experienced) separately.

S2: Life, for past many centuries, has been designed by society to present you a series of challenges and questions unless your volition (free will) decides to work through them.

S3: Partnerships (such as marriage/team-work) is a social institution theorised to combine strengths of individuals. 

These 3 statements will interweave together as I expound each of them separately but connect their corollaries. So let's start!

S1 highlights the notion of a subject-object framework: a tool to understand things in the world. If you are talking about excavating facts about the material things (objects) in the world, you need two things- a conscious brain and the object under investigation. Both of them need to be fairly disconnected from each other to enable unbiased experiment. However, what if you want to understand a mental object in the world i.e. a human, an animal or a living being? It would be wise in this case to replace the word "understand" with the word "feel". The subject-object framework is not of any practical use while attempting to "feel" an object. This is because of the fact that the object (a living being) can not be tweaked as per your wish to realise the nature of "feelings" you are experiencing due to it. Love, for example, is an emotion that you feel when you are mesmerized and happy with the very existence of that object (which can be living or non-living). If it is living, you will fail to justify (or even acknowledge) your feelings to it. In an attempt to do so, you will have to talk to the person. In that process, you will convert your feelings to words- you convey it to object, you get a response (a completely non-determinstic process). The filling of gap between what you feel and what you convey is an unsurmountable task. Things become much easier if object is completely taken out of the equation. It would be then fair to say that love concerns with the subject only.  Let's paraphrase this idea as: "I feel but I don't feel it", that is to say that you are definitely sure about the feeling emotion but the least you are sure about is feeling the object itself. Going by this regard, pop-culture notions like, "I love you", "I feel you" etc. are fairly wrong. Now, what if the object you are feeling is a non-living one (musical instrument, rivers, scenic beauties, places you like visiting)? In this case, it's relatively easy to experiment on the nature of object and explain your feeling (in vague terms) in a metaphorical form. If you are a scientist, you can draw neuro-biological corelations between how different forms of same object make you feel different. So feeling a non-living object is much simpler to explain than a living object. Hence, subject-object framework can be used in this case provided that you are determined to experiment with the object and understand the "feel" associated with it. However, it is again a correlational phenomena, that is to say that you like oranges from set A more than set B maybe because they are juicier (taste) or look good (visual) or some other material reason. However, describing the "feel" of eating set A without comparing it with set B is a futile task. Thus, it would be better to call the non-living framework as the "relative subject-object framework". If in certain situation, the person is: not willing to experiment with the reality of object; if the object is inaccessible; if it is available in one unique form, then the notion of "relative subject-object framework" doesn't apply and all you are left with is the subject itself i.e. you. Going by this regard, if "it" is singular/inaccessible/unique, then phrases "I love it" and "I feel it" are wrong and should be replaced by "I love" and "I feel".

Following arguments from the discussion above, S1 can be written in a more general form:

S1.1: "If you are dealing with non-living things in the world which are unique, singular or inaccessible or if you are dealing with living things in the world, then all you can do in regards to loving/feeling them is to love/feel but remain completely unsure about the nature of reality of them".

S2 suggests the argument that the living in the world is not an easy task. A realistic point-of-view is that every person go through rigorous challenges and difficulties, beginning from the day when they are born. To constanty fight diseases, to not become devoid of loved ones around you, to overcome challenges in career, to remain physically and mentally healthy are simple challenges that life offers.  Overlooking any of them might get you to a worse situation than where you are right now. I am not trying to induce the selection bias here by pin-pointing the negative sides of life. I understand that the life offers beautiful rivers, mountains, animals, mysteries of nature etc. which are positive attributes. One can argue that there are two ways to look at these concerns about life: pessmistic or optimistic. If you choose the former one, you have to constantly use volition to find optimistic points in life. If you choose the latter one, you have to constantly use volition to avoid the pessmistic points in life. But you can also acknowedge the optimistic points and don't think about pessimistic points at certain times of your life. In both cases, life is presenting you with challenges and problems and all you have is volition to avoid them. It can be argued from the perspective of S1 that you need to follow subject-object framework to understand the problems you are facing. Then you can work (understand) to avoid these issues using your rational will. However, sometimes you might try to just sit back and relax and focus on the positive points of life (e.g. in religious prayers). Usually, these positive points stem from the gifts given to us from the nature. These gifts can be both living and non-living being. Invoking argument from S1.1, one can say that an optimistic point-of-view would be to love/feel (these entities) and remain completely unsure about nature of reality of them.

S2 can be written in a more general form as:

S2.1: "Life is an experience every living being go through- it offers many daunting challenges and positive attributes. You have to use volition to deal with former and you can, sometimes, acknowledge (the latter) without dealing with its positive attributes". 

S3 statement introduces the institution of partnership as a way to unite individuals so that their strength (combined volition) increases. The reason behind this social construction is to conquer the daunting challenges offered by the life (S2.1). However, since the unit is composed of human beings, processes like "understanding", "feeling" will start operating when personal relations between partners are turned on. We can apply S1.1 here by arguing that each person in the unit can only love/feel the emotion involved in the relation by not dealing with the nature of the other person. In such a unit, the notion of feeling is valid only if the object is a non-living thing (singular, unique, inaccessible). Because for living being, you only have the "subject framework" which will not lead to any outcome. Hence, in a partnership, focusing on material pursuits of life- completing the team goals, money, job, recognition and so on, should be the priority. Society is designed, as argued in explanation of S2 above, to make individuals follow such material pursuits which is possible using "subject-object framework". In that process, one is highly likely to feel dejected, lost, unmotivated at times (excluding the rare cases of people with tremendous volition). A unit of like-minded people together, in form of marriage-partner, friends, co-workers, help people to stay strong throughout. In the case whenever one has to deal with emotions, then no living being on the planet other than yourself should be involved/concerned with the feeling. That is to say that others should completely stay out of the equation (S1.1). 

Now the next question is: what to do with your emotions if not reveal it to a living being? Arguing from S1.1 and S2.1, there is an ingenious way of dealing with emotions involved in enjoying the positive attributes of Earth by choosing a non-living being which is single, inaccessible, and unique. Arguably, God is an alluring idea in this regard to ascribe your emotion onto. This is because an idea/concept is an abstraction and has no life in itself. It will never revert back to you or change itself. This temptive corollary connecting emotions to God can be written in a general form as:

S3.1: To deal with your emotions, you need an object which is singular/inaccessible/unique and allows you to (sometimes) sit back, relax and ponder over the optimistic attributes (rivers, mountains etc.) offered by life without ever questioning the nature of reality of them. You have to make sure that in the whole process, you do not deal with object of analysis itself. All you need to do, simply, is love/feel.

Diagramatic summary: