How I Function

I cannot function without inspiration; and i don't mean inspiration in the Steven Gerrard way. The Steven Gerrard way of inspiration, for those who do not know, is 'leading by example and thereby inducing results by sheer awesomeness'. Steven Gerrard will score a spectacular goal, make an awesome tackle or give a brilliant through ball, and will hence goad his team mates to try and reach his own level of awesomeness. That is what is portrayed as true inspiration; and that is precisely what i do not feel.

I see people doing shit, and i feel jealous. So i do shit. If i see people aren't doing shit, i don't feel jealousy and hence i don't do shit. Y'know? By shit, i mean stuff; but you know that already, don't you, you awesome reader. You beautiful, handsome, clever ape. You ape aping, grape gaping, Bolton Wanderer. You toilet paper, you.

Functioning for me is a way of life; and what really, is life? Life is a bunch of functions that are verbs. Life is the void that one feels when one is in a crowd. Life is the awesomeness that one feels when one's team is knocked out of the Champions League. Life is the eccentricity that one foregoes to pre-determine change. Life is more than just a full stop, and anyone who stops with a Life Is.

The point i'm trying to make is that i'm hopelessly writers blocked. I feel empty inside.

The bright side is that Liverpool have won their last two games; and that i have awesome music to listen to.

PS: The Fort Minor album really is awesome. The Demi Lovato album is ruddy brilliant.

"Follow Your Instinct"

People keep harping on about the wonderfulness and the awesomeness of 'Instinct'. Books and Movies keep glorifying characters who rely primarily on their intuition or instinct. From what one sees, hears and reads, the definition of instinct, as i gather it is the gut feeling that warns people about problematic situations and helps them overcome the same. It is often shown that blindly trusting your instinct is a good thing, and one must always go with it. You get the drift, right? Characters like Hercule Poirot from Agatha Christie, the Jew-Killer from Inglourious Basterds, Michael Weston from Burn Notice and countless other heroes/villains have this legendary power of control over instinct. Of course, i could've named more famous people, but this is what comes to mind.

Now here's my complaint. It doesn't work for me. Maybe i'm like George Coztanza in "The Opposite", and my instincts are self destructive; or maybe i don't know what my instincts are, but the point is that every time i follow my instincts, i end up like a fool. People don't talk about the huge risk that you're taking every time you follow your instincts. Lines like "Follow your heart, and not your mind" have become clichés.

Theory 1:

Maybe i don't recognize my instincts and i'm trying too hard to follow them. This is probably what a counsellor or the logical thinker will tell you. Maybe i'm looking for a quick fix to a problem and i'm expecting too much from my instincts. Maybe instinct is meant to be used sparingly.

Theory 2:

Maybe what i'm following isn't really my instinct, and i've tapped into what i think is my instinct. In my desperation to reach that level-of-awesome-intuition maybe i'm ignoring my instincts.

Theory 3:

Maybe instincts don't exist and it's all a media farce. Maybe it's all a ruse to get people to purchase items based on what they think is their instinct when it's just pure stupidity. Refer: Point of Purchase Marketing.

Theory 4:

The world doesn't exist and we're living in a simpler version of the matrix. Neo doesn't exist. Everything is an illusion, and enlightenment doesn't exist.

Theory 5:

People eventually got tired of the constricted nature of briefs and went on to boxers. However, what they didn't know was that the race of boxers were just extremely pissed off at missing out on Christmas, and the death of Muhammad Ali didn't really help matters for the human race. I know this theory leaves females out, but well, they got Feminine Intuition, didn't they? Fucking misers.

Theory 6:

ZEITGEIST SUCKS ASS!

The Point:

Every time i follow what i think are my instincts, i get fucked. Be it in Fantasy Premier League, or in GTA, or in the exams. As Ricky Gervais rightfully said: "Fucked". I'm sure it doesn't exist. The same goes for Feminine Intuition.

PS: Bang Bang; Something Stupid; These Boots Are Made For Walkin' and the whole Greatest Hits album, really. Nancy Sinatra.

Exaggeration & More

I remember being so proud of myself when i first used the word "exaggeration". I was bitching to my mother about an uncle of mine who did the 'said deed' a lot, and she kind of ignored me in the lovable way that parents ignore kids; and the incident was forgotten. But since then, every time i used a word out of the ordinary; a word i'd never used before or a word i'd recently learnt, i'd experience this literary thrill. See, it isn't the greatest thing in the world, but it is nice; and i won't try and hyperbole it out of proportion here. Hah! If that made no sense, then YOU need stop being such a grammar nazi. No Humour For You!

Anyway, this post isn't about big words and my usage of them. It's specifically about: "Exaggeration". I find that people use exaggeration as a defense mechanism when narrating stories that aren't really that interesting.

People aren't really used to moderation. It's useless to have a non-committal viewpoint of something; and as a result, you'll either get ignored or misinterpreted as being negative. Eg. Piki asked me the other day: "What do you think of the tone of guitar and processor?". I replied: "It's okay, man." I meant it. It was okay, it was neither good, nor bad. If i heard his tone, i'd move on to some other aspect of the music. It's the musical equivalent of those run-of-the-mill, forgettable faces' that spies tend to have. This may be perceived as a bad thing, but in my opinion, it really isn't.

Another, really frustrating example: When you want feedback, generally the best way to get it is to ask directly. So, the other day, i asked Aidan after a show about how i played that day. He said something to the effect of: "You were shit!". Now, i know how i played that day, and i really wasn't shit at all. I wasn't extraordinary, but i was just about normal, and i know that i didn't really make any mistakes. But what really bothers me is that Aidan proceeded to justify himself by exaggerating my 'shit' performance. It's a personal example, and i know i'm probably just venting my whatever here, but it is my blog. Hah! That's 1-0 to me.

The point is this: people say that the word "good" has lost it's value as it stands for mediocracy; but i don't believe in that. When people call something i've done or like "good", i know they mean "it's okay"; but when i call something "good", i actually mean something better than ordinary. I just hope people get this.

This post is inspired by 3 things:

1. My continued increasing dislike of all things related to Thane.

2. No post for a while, and the resultant insecurity.

3. The recent barrage of posts by Kyra and Harry; and the awesome new blog i found to read.

I've just read a spate of awesome posts, and it sucks that i can't even get close to them. But i take heart in the fact that at least i wrote something. So Hah! That's 2-0 to me. By the way, the next awesome song is Weezer - Run Over By A Truck.

Sharpening The Resolution

I've always scoffed philosophy and non-fiction. As a sarcasm loving un-serious indivisual who revels in slapstick humour and it's derivatives, i seriously under appreciate these things (Philosophy and non-fiction). I've always perceived them as boring and uninteresting albeit useful for old ladies and mid life crisis sufferers. More importantly, i've always considered myself as not the target audience to which these things are advertised to/portrayed towards.

I now realize and understand firstly, the semi-truthfulness of my beliefs and secondly, the narrow viewpoint with which i look at things. With my now broadened perspective, i have come to realize that although most non-fiction is hypocritical, sleazy and a business for money laundering (in my opinion), to change the way one looks at it, one must change one's personal viewpoint. I see non-fiction and philosophy writers not as those eager to spread their views and learnings but as those who choose to make a profit out of it. Both of these facts may be true, or they may be false. These writers may choose to eagerly spread their acquired knowledge, but the true purpose isn't an altruistic one. In fact, reward doesn't even feature in the cognitive process involved.

Non-fiction, as i now see it is a form of self-clarification. With philosophy, one can essentially create the ground rules based on which the new thought pattern/knowledge application will be based. It is nothing more or less than a rule book of your 'philosophy'. It is not meant to be read by anyone else, and the experience of writing about it, of clarifying the thoughts in your own head, of putting your thoughts cohesively on paper is equal to increasing the sharpness on ones TV from 10 to 100. You may be quite clear about your so called 'philosophy' at level 10, but once level 100 is reached, it is concrete.

Of course, i still very much hate non-fiction, philosophy and their derivatives, but i understand the writer's point of view. Just for clarification (!), when i say writer, i mean author.

I just saw Episode 8 of Season 4 of Heroes, and it sparked off a chain of thought in my head that i cannot seem to comprehend right now. All i know is that my new found understanding is directly related to the way that Heroes is made, and for this, i am grateful. From the point of view of the Heroes audience, the last episode took us back to Season 1, but made it more like Season 1 5000. I'm pretty sure the viewer ship will drop after this episode, and i'm even more positive that critics will pan it for choosing the particular story arc. Heroes, from the very beginning has shown it's roots not in superpowers and their display, but the relation of all events to two things at different levels:

1. At a lower level, the relation of all events to the time-space continuum, as 'we humans' choose to call it.

2. At a higher level, the relation of all events to destiny; and the influence of destiny on peoples life patterns and choices.

For me, this is what differentiates Heroes from X-Men or any other superhero tripe that the world can throw at us.

PS: I love the 'tripe'. Really, i do.