Outside and inside

What's outside is far different 
from what's inside.

Outside - is all a curry,
billions of mirrors
for everyone who sees it,
mirrors that never break,
even after death -
black, tinted, polished,
all kinds of mirrors.
Mirrors with garlands,
mirrors of love,
mirrors of trust,
of friendship, of respect,
of animosity, of hatred,
of all gamets of emotions
that you could expect.

Inside - though is different,
there is no mirror here (I think),
for no one is really seeing me, 
except,
I think that *someone* is calling me,
or *platonically* pulling me in.
With shackles on my head,
while immersed inside water,
with no breath and no light,
only two things: struggle and hope,
what lies ahead and drives me ahead is:
fear of a fathomless future
that lies in uncertainity,
as to what kind of mirrors it holds,
and if the shackles are broken,
and when they are,
what exists and what not?

(My guess is: just mirrors and nothing else)

A queen unknown to all

How beautiful can that day could be
when all men are there to see the queen -
fully naked and spreading her legs -
for gentleman to come and fuck her,
but just that the queen is not visible.

She is not visible.
She is hidden, inside a world -
the world that is full of chaos,
full of approximations
full of tricks and inventions.
But there is only one way,
to fuck 
a "thing"
completely. 
And that way needs to be discovered, gentleman - not invented!
 
Can you invent multiple techniques to satisfy a single mistress?
No.

There is only one way and only a right man would know it.
Is it because a right man is born to be right?
Of course, not!
A right man is not born: a man is born to close to be "right" every minute,
in persistence to fuck the mistress hard.
But what does even "fucking hard" mean?
There is no end to "fucking her", right?
When would you stop?

To fuck her is to actually decide that you wanna fuck her,
and let that decision fuck you all over, no matter what happens.

Knowing what your queen is and accepting that that is your queen
even before meeting her is the act akin to fucking yourself first 
that in the pursuit of finding her, you would fuck yourself first,
for intense periods of "thinking, trials, and errors", and the success would be,
when one day you find her, with her legs opened, 
with right set of tools - lemmas, axioms, and theorems -
and completely worship her, oil her, and enter her smooth crevices to discover
what you were searching for since the day you realised that you are made for her.

The next challenge

A challenge posed by you
excited me -
for the problem that you framed,
kept me ON, running, in loops,
days and nights of endless mind-fight,
thanks to the problem that you framed -
I was on it, the whole night!

But now, I am all alone
that problem practically inaccessible to me,
all I am left with is a yearning for the feeling
that I got from your problem -
oh God, I don't believe in God, what do I believe in?
I believe in nothing now - I am numb, my nerves are wrecking,
I am falling apart, my eyes in tears, my body falling apart, 
as if something is lying hidden somewhere, I am in search of 'you' -
what is you, if not a problem posed by someone?
I am beyond the intellectual systems now -
I do not subscribe to prize problems that you frame -
there are ideas that excite me - but they are transient.

I am in a state, where all I have is feeling of what I felt before.
I can not describe it here, nor I can pass it on to someone else.
The feeling is hard to describe now, for I do not have it now.
All I can do now is to create - create that feeling again.
Find a problem, as convoluted as Navier-Stokes, and feel alive again.
Creating problems is more godly than worshipping an already created problem.
Oh God, if there is a God, then I have lost my feeling of faith in you -
all I have now is a constant yearning to create my own God -
a problem that I can worship, ruminate upon, trust entirely my systems in,

something that keeps me ON for my entire life! :)

Words, images, and confusions

All I recall is what I see,
what I see from 
what you say (that you see) -
your words do not mean mean anything to me,
just the image your words create in my mind 
is all that I recall now and is "truth" to me.
Oh, god! So where do confusions stem from?
Why do sometimes I remember some phrases more than others?
It's just that what I can't create in images, I remember through words.
Those words might fade away, might not - with time. 
But creating an image relaxes most tension in brain.
Fair point, but do we think using words or images?
Both, I believe. With words, thinking is laborious,
more options, more details, more-to-discard-yet-not-discarded stuff.
With images, thinking is less heavy on brain,
unclear, fuzzy, vague, light memory-requirement, and probably deep in some sense.
Both ways are important and part of life.
Does the shape matter or the details?
Does my words matter or the image?
I don't know. But all I know is to lighten the mind,
it's good to get rid of words,
hear something fuzzy rubbish to ignore it,
undo wirings, undo connections, undo words, embrace images.
Images that connect haphazard, random, and chaotic patterns.
Everything to everything, as if all nothing.
Just as you see now these words do not mean anything,
try not remembering my words but just imagine a dot,
a dot getting bigger and producing another dot,
that dot gives rise to another dot,
birth of a dot from a dot,
until the whole screen becomes fuzzy and becomes "all dots",
dots that have some pattern that is yet to be discovered.
And that is probably where the fun starts.  (Part 2 coming up)

The next pillar

To create a pillar that shines light
and becomes the "monumental" truth -
is not a "volition-based" task,
nor it is a "reserved-for-genius" task either.
So, what is it then?
What distinguishes Perelman's proof
from countless other proofs?
What distinguishes a big story 
from countless other stories?~
What distinguishes a 2-page worth of wisdom
from numerous pages of BS and blabbering?

The question. The precise question that
captures the complexity that needs to be resolved.

Those universal questions, like Halting problem,
or that of determinacy versus randomness that confuses everyone.
The philosophical questions that trouble every mind.
There certainly are more questions to find, 
that the questions left unanswered.
To frame a "great" question and to attempt to answer it is difficult.
To find "conjectures" and to attempt to answer them is difficult.

There's more in science than to answer questions.
It is to imagine a new realm of ideas,
ask questions that fall in those realm,
and then attempt to answer them.

An abstract basis of emotions - 5 unanswered questions

I have been obsessed with finding a rigid ground for emotions, lately. Meaning that when one feels: digust, happy, angry etc. I am interested to know what is the origin of such emotions - meaning those simple rules/laws/axioms that can simulate/explain/trigger these emotions; let's focus only on emotions of humans in this article. Though these emotions might get triggered because of several reasons, for example, through someone's personal story/anecdote/experience, but I find it hard to consider such anecdotes as something which might provide a rigorous justification to the origin of emotions. I understand that evolutionary arguments are the most widely accepted reasons for it. However, I attempt to consider an emotion as an objective problem that when felt for the first time should be theorised there and then without rationalising something that happened million years ago and seeing the problem as afresh from a rigid, mathematical angle. Some questions that are popping up in my mind and I would like to answer them in next few months (through an epic poem and series of paintings) are:

1. How can the emotional bond between mother and baby be put forth in an abstract format?
2. How can the relationship between an theist and God be put forth in an abstract format?
3. How can the bond between an atheist and a system of belief that they believe in  be put forth in abstract format?
4. How can the obsession of a human with stories/poems/movies be put forth in an abstract format?
5. Desire - the desire to be immortal and stay alive in hearts of others - how can it be put forth in an abstract format?
6. The weird obsession to assimilate mind into reality - an emotional obsession with the idea of death - how can it be put forth in an abstract format?

I think these are healthy questions to ask. Possibly, to write down 5 sub-parts of the poem where each sub-part is an ensuing dialogue between couple of people who try to get the emotion by understanding the painting, which attempts to answer each of the above question.

Randomness jelly

The biological world is not black and white,
it's full of colors, it's very bright! 
Bright because of proteins that reflect light,
green, red, yellow - if not then it's just white.
These colors are complex products 
of underlying simple sequences of proteins -
gosh, if you know them, 
do you think you have explained everything?
The basic tenets are not everything 
to explain complexity at larger scale,
simple rules yield complex things,
and that's what we call the randomness.
Randomness needs to have a pattern,
else you can say nothing about it.
To find a pattern is to glorify it,
celebrate it, beautify it, respect it!
Less randomness might look bad,
for it makes things less thrill,
imagine a tennis player playing shots
by employing the same, old skill.
But, randomness is like a jelly,
you reduce it somewhere, you create elsewhere.
If not in places, it could be in paper.
If not in paper, it could be in interpretation.
If not in interpretation, it could be in meta-interpretation.
The point is randomness exists at all scales,
and a decrease in randomness doesn't mean permanent decrease,
it's a beginning of a new world - 
a world where thrill happens,
where wind is as chaotic as before,
where ideas come, conquer, and stay -
you stay, I stay, we all stay.