Emotions and social dynamics - part 1

It's about how emotions drive humans,
romantic feelings bring two bodies together -
a tug of war, push and pull, push and pull.
What's in control? What's not in control?
No one is sure.
But such a transcendental feeling drives humans -
marriages, kids, families do happen.
Networks form, of friends and of families -
all arising from this 2-body feeling problem,
if you want to call this a problem.

It surely is a problem, 
if it connects to the bigger picture
and presents one the whole picture.

Some propositions on movies as arts+philosophy medium

1. Movie is a medium for author to express an emotion intensely.

2. Minimilastically, one intense emotion throughout movie is enough to convey its wholeness.

3. The medium itself poses challenge in communicating author's emotion to the viewer, because of  inherent gap between the two. 

4. Such an inherent gap can be fulfilled through using movie to convey an emotion very rich artistically, and also deep down with philosophical troubles.

5. A modern movie narrative has a forced, non-linear combination of images with a logical connection in between the jumbled up parts.

6. Tarkovsky's technique is one step ahead, to reduce the logical context of image, add a metaphorical element, heighten that element with background sound and long-takes where the focus on poetic element becomes apparent and loosely coming out of the image. 

7. While this technique is close to a poetry, and this movie can become most closest to a philosophical poetry as the poetic artistic element is very strong, the philsophical element is confounded because of the characters or symbols raising questions in the mind of viewers.

8. While raising questions is required, using characters and symbols both have problems. 

9. The character is bounded to the limits of time/generation when the art is created rendering it less effective in another time scale, place, once the character doesn't resonate superficially with people. 

9.1 The symbols itself create a range of metaphorical meanings which are used to link different frames - a technique employed by Tarkovsky's movies. 

Transitions to adulthood

What stable and consistent life is?
I don't know.

I know there is something which it is
but I don't know.

Is it when things around you -
as in ideas, beliefs, wisdom -
around you don't change much?

Is it when experiences just enhance
what you already know and understand well?

Is it when a new idea is difficult
to cognitively assimilate with your old hypotheses?

Well, the truth is that your hypotheses are merely situational.
It's just that they happened to be like this and not something else.
They became part of you before adulthood -
when some random events created some belief structures.

Now, why it becomes difficult to create another structure again?
It's because a brain is limited to hop in between different structures.
Every structure has its own network of life.
And living multiple lives is an insanely mentally difficult task.

Hence, adulthood doesn't mean a point
where one is stable, rigid, and informed.
But just that one's capability
to life multiple lives,
to imagine new worlds,
to create new networks,
to see the unseen,
to yearn for something new,
to unlearn and relearn,
to forget and think afresh,
is gone forever.

My proposed solution to film as a medium of art/Phil debate

A while ago, I asked a question to myself as to whether films can be seen as consistent art forms which can also be self-consistent in portraying certain philosophy. In the sense that, while books are traditionally favorite medium to talk about different Philosophical systems, the current changing waves ask for videos/movies as a way of portraying philosophy. However, it is also important for me to choose and create something that will survive the test of times, and not get deluded as a movies of old generation, to not meant for future generation. It has to be philosophically solid, artistically relevant in future, and consciously relevant to all humans of past, current, and future generation. It seems like a big thing to ask for or a big dream to imagine - however, the solution that is propping in my mind is rather quite simple in visual, atleast. 

It seems to be inspired from: my fascination with movies of Richard Linklater, novels/writing of David Foster Wallace, post-structuralism, Godel's incompleteness theorem, my own Philosophy of decision-making, geometrical aspects of evolution (how certain nonphysical mutations aren't carried forward and branching proceeds), cinematic expereince of watching "In the mood for love", my own lifelong love for combing emotional elements with abstract mathematical elements, and my lifelong quest to ascribe various aspects of mental reality onto a canvas.

Solution:

A white background as a metaphor of absolute mental reality - a black circle that represents the frame in which you will watch the story of the movie - black circle is of variable shape - black circle itself resembles the state-of-mind (mindspace) occupied by the central character of the movie - when the character is about to make a decision (as in the black circle is about to pinch towards the right), the whole movie wishes to trace back the past neurons/decisions/mental-spaces invoked internally while the character makes the decision - which means that the black circle moves leftwards and again protrudes in another direction but travels in left direction to another space which represents the decision before it landed up to the current mind space - the cycle keeps on repeating leftwards - the protrusions become more and more bigger and clearer, as some past decisions which were not taken become more and more clearer to see - the tracing back process continues to happen. 

A basic structure might be inspired from this:

I know how to visually show the black frame. It will involve some graphic designing, but it shouldn't be a difficult process. What's most important is the story to consider inside the frame?

Task 1: I can try to write down a short-story of my own decision-yet-to-be-taken (in DFW style) by tracing back to the past decision, then to the past decision and so on..where the diversions become bigger and bigger in their description and possiblities of being undertaken.   

Task 2: To think of a similar decision-making story, but from a biology perspective. Maybe ideas from  lab experience (biophysics and connection to evolution) would help.

New ideas

What is the absolute mental reality? 
The question troubles me -
not because of emotional reasons,
but because it's a conundrum.
Something that doesn't seem to have fixed definition, and fixed answer.

Every question has its own answer.

"But it all starts with a statement, which means that statements are fundamental".

But how is it fundamental? Is there any proof of it? What's fundamental is how your mental reality is like? But it could be just your unique mental reality. Someone might have another mental reality - which means that Someone else might think that statements are not fundamental. And someone else might consider these two previous set of people to be contradictory, and someone not (if they do not believe in law of third middle). It means that behind some seemingly logically developed connections, there might be some possible generalisations of them, an another man's land built on the pillar of precise clarity, indepth detail. 

Seeing world through numbers/labels/precise meanings is different than finding connections between vaguely described but turned into abstract elements. Both methods seems important in different aspects - thought currently, the first one is considered more fundamental, less useful.

Knowing another brain is to make a story of how their brain is operating. Knowing more stories/dreams/ideas of a person reveals what's in his head for most time, that's how two brains/people get close to each other-- pattern, past and future projections.

 

Can afford to not be shallow: Part 2

The world that pulls me 
is somewhere between: 
predictability and unpredictability,
rigid and loose,
defined and undefined,
right and wrong.

I am inconsistent with myself,
hence the inconsistency pulls me;
the dilemma of what's right and what's not.

Is the solution consistent or not?
Is the solution absurd or not?

When Turing machine halts, it amazes me.
Because one can embed an equation into it, 
and the equation stops yielding anything.

When Constantin proves finite-time singularity
of 4th order PDE, it amazes me.
Because it was numerically shown,
but never before rigorously proved.

The world between YES and NO, is fascinating
as it keeps me ON,
it keeps me going.

Imagine everything being solvable,
everything being predictable,
everything just a next-step you need to do,
without thrill, without sense of awe,
without depression, without thought of suicide,
without angst, without ounces of self-hate and self-love,
how insipid that world would be?

My world should never be predictable,
it should be chaotic as like ocean waves -
you can never predict
what I will say,
what I will behave like,
what I will offer,
what I will decline -
a love that's fulfiled is a burden for ages to come.
Mansions, travels, vacations and perks - 
they are just means, not necessary,
a way to reach those places where I can dare to not be shallow.

All I want is an empty place,
where I can afford to not be shallow.
Where I settle some issues (or create new ones).
Where I create a thought that opens a series of bewilderments.
Where the shaky ground that I stand in, 
doesn't become solid or too loose,
instead just allow me to create new grounds
where people come and visit me -
talk to me and leave me,
visit the place when I am not there,
feel shaky in that ground and feel the same
that I feel now, here...
wish to do the same,
that I wish to do now, here...
and the process keeps on repeating...
forever

Can afford to be shallow - Part 1

There was a time
when flowing water meant million things to me -
fluids, neural circuits, poetry, love and what not!

But now, I am shallow. I see it as nothing but "flowing water".

There was a time

when layers of clouds meant million things to me -

diffraction, stories, faces and what not!

But now, I am shallow. I see it as nothing but "just clouds".

At that time, I had nothing, so I was living my true self.
A philosophically-troubled thinker who is deep into things.
Sleepless nights, countless dreams, infinite plans and no fears.
No setbacks, no expectations and no burden.
I was true. I was into myself.

As I deal more with real world - grants, funds, jobs and "reaching out".
I lose my inner self.
I do remember vestiges of my inner self -
it comes out once in a while and lays dormant for rest of the time.

I don't live in my abstract world anymore. 

On top of all that, I can afford to be shallow.
But how long this will last?

A time will come, when world will challenge me.
Punch me into my face and ask me to face it upfront.
I still might work hard and continue to afford to be shallow.
But is this what I want?

Not really.