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