Skip to main content

At or through the looking-glass?


Let's embark on a clay-moulding competition! A tent fit to accommodate a grounded, forward-facing human's perspective of horizontally lined dozen elephants has been erected in the center of a sprawling meadow. 6 contestants have each been provided with a clay ball of equal size.

Their goal is to mould the given ball into the best-possible structure. There are no time-limits, effectively rendering evaluations and rewards to be posthumous. The contestants will also be required to elaborate the function of the mould submitted.

Once submissions are done, to determine the winner, we would need a judge. An impartial and just one at that. The judge, Celia, is from a part of town that is completely far away geographically and culturally from the entirety of the contestants'. Now, she has an extremely difficult job to do though she had never volunteered. She has to judge each mould and evaluate it for success based on present appearance and dissecting its implied function based on extraneous, intangible and tangible factors.

We have submissions of only one type: the imaginable. If something is unimaginable, it can be established with a fairly high measure of conviction that it will never be submitted, right? Yet, what if the unimaginable submission suffers only from the limitation of not being able to have been effectively communicated? There goes another argument.

Anyway, we have Celia burdened with the task of evaluating the below submissions:

1) A submits a mould that is indiscernible from the raw material provided and presents no function.

2) B gives Celia a ball of clay pruned only around the edges to fit around holes of a suitable size.

3) C submits a mould that is entirely different from the raw material he was provided and throws in its function as being irreversible.

4) D throws in two submissions and elaborates that these two submissions do not inter-mix as a result of their razor-sharp focus towards their functions. In essence, he provides a head-function and one sub-function for each submission. After all, no terms of the competition suggested that only one submission is allowed per contestant. Innovative!

5) E submits a mould that has been battered by the coaxing elements of time and nature, and professes its function as being able to provoke Celia's imagination!

6) F submits a mould that, unaware to him, has already been tampered with by the organizers. X has been used only as a tool to further the organizer's wish of participating in the competition. I am reminded of how host institutions are duty-bound to not take part in the event, owing to concerns of easier adaptability and partiality, though the latter is not a factor for this competition.

If you were Celia, which would you pick as the winner?

If the ball of clay provided was animate yet not allowed to use its ability to communicate, which would you then pick as the winner?

Ah, if only Celia were God and contestants expecting parents!

Devoid or denied of thought and communication, is being animate any different than being inanimate? 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Head-less and Tail-less.

Crisp. This single five letter word evokes many feelings and pleasant sceneries within us, only upon dwelling though. It may be the delicious crunch of a packet of chips, the refreshing atmosphere surrounding us or one of the many letter-assortments availed to emphasize an individual’s character, to name a few. I will portray this word in a completely new light in this essay, as that in relation to the broad canvas spanned by cyber-borders and its ilk. To initiate the discussion, let us take the case of Narendra Modi, the honourable Prime Minister of India. He ushered in a new paradigm of campaigning in the prelude to the Lok Sabha elections in 2014. Successfully wielding the weapon of social media, he lured the major demographic of India: the youth. That he won the election by a staggering margin is ample proof of what social media and in broader terms, what the Internet can do. The question being debated here is not the after-shocks of social media but the exploitation of the I...
Post a Comment
Read more

From stranger, to stranger.

Wow! It has been a long time since I blogged. A glance at the last post shows that two months has whizzed past and that I don't have a single post during that period. I hope to make amends for the involuntary hibernation by weekly posting from now. And so here goes the first of them. Trust. Every one of us trusts some individual in our passage towards higher echelons of life, don't we? But as we indulge in conversations with our peers, we find that some render trust generously while the rest waver under veiled gardens. Why is there a disparity when all of us are cut from the same fabric? The solution to this query lies under the oft-quoted answer "Our past experiences make us trust less!" So true, right? We meet a stranger on the road sharing our same taste and as the conversation proceeds (or not, depending on what our moms taught us!), we connect with them at a level that, in truth, cannot be quantified. Strangers on roads are not exactly potential candidat...
Post a Comment
Read more

Stop Ea'zh'th-qu'ack'ing!

I will bring to the fore two disturbing trends that plagued me whenever I stumble on it. These two are entirely unrelated. The first one being the pronunciation of the word "Earthquake" and the next being the sound that 'r' suffers in the tongues of Indians mimicking the Brits and the Americans. Yes, I agree there are other words pronounced wrongly but this particular word had the power to draw me in to a mode of introspection, albeit for weird reason. I have encountered gentlemen and women pronouncing the word as Earth-qu'ack'. They are not of a particular category. These gentlemen span the range of all the seven stages of life, yet most of them don't seem to be concerned that they spell the word in an embarrassing way. Maybe their teachers had pronounced it so, maybe they ignored the thorn in lieu of the bigger scheme, whatever might be the reason, I consider it  a blemish on their record, more so if they happen to be English lecturers. The correct pr...
Post a Comment
Read more