Monday, September 04, 2006

Impressions...

‘Why do you write such depressing stuff?’, ‘Why does death figure so prominently in your work?’, quite a few people have asked me in the last few days.

The matter has been duly contemplated and discussed with a friend of mine, Raakesh. By the way, do visit this fellow’s blog – http://www.summa-iru.blogspot.com/. Some of the stuff on it is simply awesome. Don’t ask me what that name means. My ignorance on the origination and essence of it is rivaled only by my ignorance of the temperature on Alpha Centauri in 1763 AD.

In any case, I was talking about this enchanting discussion I had with Raakesh. Now, enchantment of the reader is not the objective of this piece of literature and therefore, I’ll refrain from going into a word by word account of the conversation. The crux can be put forth as simply the following statement:

Involving death in anything related to life is not a matter of choice. It is in fact imperative in its presence. Any discussion on life and its philosophies must find its logical closure in death.



However, in the interest of diversity in my blog, I’ve decided to write on an issue, slightly removed from death.

‘Nature is all powerful.’

So we’ve been told. I respectfully disagree. Or I don’t agree to it in totality, at any rate.

Nature is so hopelessly powerless in its ability to protect its own self against the perpetrations of men, and yet so astonishingly powerful in its ability to exact remorseless vengeance on them.

Interestingly, the same can be said about Mankind too.

That basically throws the ‘more powerful-less powerful’ theory safely out of the window. The battle is indeed, between equals.
Even more intriguing is the thought that the adversaries are so completely dependent on each other for each other’s existences. With the fall of one, the other must fall too. Some might argue that Nature will last beyond life. The argument is not incorrect, but then, what’s the point of nature’s being, if there’s no life?


‘Mother Nature loves us, cares for us, blah blah blah…’

Raakesh and I touched upon this issue too. And while we held diametrically opposite points of views, both our views were equally diametrically opposite to the one mentioned above.
For all the geometry-obsessed characters who’re jumping out of their seats in agitation against the apparent impossibility of this statement, here’s a clue: Go 3D. Go ‘Sphere’.

Raakesh feels that Nature just doesn’t care. It is in fact, entirely incapable of emotions. It is just a non-living, inanimate entity. Now he might be scientifically true to an extent, and perhaps even completely so, but as long as he’s not able to produce proof, I can allow myself certain creative and philosophical liberties and come up with an alternate interpretation.

I feel, Nature actually does care, but it cares for its own self esteem far more than it does for such mere trivialities as life.

Perhaps, it derives a strange sadistic pleasure out of its own destruction, by the living. For it knows that as it is pushed, inch by inch, towards its end, Mankind too, hurtles towards its own annihilation.

Just thoughts these. We’ll probably never know the truth of the matter.

8 comments:

gnothi seauton said...

yes kushal...i think we stopped the talk the other day in favour of midnight tea..that probably was the sanest thing that came out of it!! i'll push my case further ;) man is just being presumptuous if he thinks he is hurting nature or that nature will come down upon him in a rain of retribution..u call cutting trees and killing wildlife hurting nature? species die out.they go extinct.habitats run dry.yes.maybe he is not being clever because what he is doing now may be to his own detriment in the future.not to nature's.how can you fight with a presense which for all we know might be eternal.the stuff that we attribute to nature are what we see/want to see in it.concepts of birth/death/gloom/hope/regeneration were born with man and will die with him.

ps: sorry to have made it too legnthy/preachy!!

gnothi seauton said...

and....thanks for the referral!! and for elevating the chit chat that we had the other day to the levels of a profound discussion ;)

Kushal Chowdhury said...

@ Raakesh

Thanks for the thanks for the referral!
About the too lengthy/preachy thing, well, now that you've done it, nothing we can do about it :)
In any case, you can't prove you're right and I can't prove I am right and in all probability, no one else can prove we're both wrong...so lets just leave it to individual interpretation!

Ankur said...

Perhaps humankind forms a part of what we perceive as nature. It is possible that nature is no different than many parts combined as a whole operating together. A single part of it would be supremely incapable of comprehending its importance in the grand scheme...... Maybe because the effect is only of the cumulative and not the individual.

Ankur said...

Perhaps humankind forms a part of what we perceive as nature. It is possible that nature is no different than many parts combined as a whole operating together. A single part of it would be supremely incapable of comprehending its importance in the grand scheme Maybe because the effect is only of the cumulative and not the individual.

Kushal Chowdhury said...

@ Ankur
Feel inclined to agree with you. It only reinforces my theory of 'one loses-the other loses too'.
And yes, nature is indeed a cumulative effect and not a single entity. Very well put, Sir!

h t said...

Kaushal,
Does nature amortize all our crimes over a period, or does it expense it at once?

(yes, Hell did this to me.)

blogbee said...

how can three pts be diametrically opposite in a sphere??