Monday, June 13, 2011

The excuse of needs

Needs. They are unavoidable, especially the ones I am talking about in this blogpost. We all have 'em, and can't live without them. A lot of them we don't understand, despite the fact that each of them give us a lot of pleasure. By this statement, I refer to all needs ranging from lip smacking food to our emotional/erotic/hormonal ones. My POV is we should not be victims of our needs, despite the pleasure they give us. This is simply because it shortens the span of the life you will lead. I explain with reasons below:

1) It's a circular trap you get caught in, outside of which there is lots of freedom you don't explore.
2) You end up going into maintenance mode, for most of the time you're alive.
3) You make everything everyone does for you, including the ones you love the most, gratificatory (I may have just concocted that one).
4) The ones who provide your needs become commodities, just like when you provide someone else's. To do this is just plain absurd. Gotta to have some value, yeah? And not the kind based on which the price of what you buy in the general store is fixed.

Now, I tackle the extreme case scenario - emotional/erotic/hormonal needs. We all need to be loved, yes, I perfectly agree. But does "we all" include the one who satisfies our such needs as well? Is the need to be loved a daily dose or is it a ever present one? Would you like to be the one whose loving you and serving your exact needs and, I dare say, wanting to have his/hers served as well? Can we throw his/her need for needs being satisfied out of the window? I wouldn't want to be that guy. I'm sure any girl wouldn't want to be in that position either.

Here's the thing. When needs become gratificatory, they become pills. You have to take them daily. Rather, you have to be given them daily. Between the two, I pity the ones who is being demanded of. No, wait. I pity the one who demands. When things fall through, the latter will be in a worse off situation that the former. The latter will be the one to lament about the former. We know it tends to be masculine-tended.

A need that's gratified over and over is a dead gift. It pleasures us and then we need another dose (repeat x the rest of our lives). Then your lover is your need gratifier. Every else you may say about him/her in this case is bullshit. You can flush it down the commode. So much for romance and all that comes with it. You're, then, lying through your nose when you say and do all of that. Or, did I just mix that with another need? Maybe this is where the whole thing of it's not working out-we need to break up-soon enough onto next boyfriend-or back together again-I can't live without you comes into perfect picture.

Perhaps we should separate the two. Needs are needs and love is love. Needs, I can gratify. I choose if I want to commodify myself as much and live in to maintenance mode. And while I do that, I also role play on how the other end of the relationship gives me the opportunity. Whether I am guilt-stricken or so selfish that I can't see beyond my own needs and how I squeeze dry the other end of the relationship who also has them, I decide for myself. Of course, the other end of the relationship can also walk out and I can lament to no end till I get into another relationship. So on and so forth, over and over again.

Love(and whatever it is), we can wait on it till it delivers that magical something (that's if we still have some hope in it). When love(whatever that is) becomes more than just a need, it takes shape in the fabric of our everyday. It ceases to be a pill or a dose of anything. It's no more an expectation of something that we will get. In one sense, it may be a hope of something we'd like to find. The perfect thing in reality, finally. It is a two-way thing regardless of kickbacks. Unfortunately, the only way it survives is if both sides keep the pact to ensure it stays two-way, with both sides constantly exploring through their own efforts. Neither are perfect and are probably worse off, more usually the side between the two that doesn't lament to no end about the other's incapacity to satisfy their needs but waits for their own time under the sun exploring it further each moment.

Up to then, my needs will remain needs anyhow. I can choose to be victimised by them, of course at someone else's cost (and pray he/she stays). Your gamble :)

On a side note, are your needs just an excuse for your ego and selfcenteredness?

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Character or Punctuation? o.O

Character or Punctuation. That's the real dilemma. Facing situations everyday where I need to make sure that I keep both in balance so that I am not gramatically wrong and don't write flat language, it still remains a dilemma. There are rules though that I know I must stick to always.

1) PUNCTUATIONS HAVE PURPOSES

Any writing always has something to say and that must be its function - to be informative, primarily. It has a purpose to serve. Any editing that may happen, has to happen keeping that purpose intact. The first rule is that PUNCTUATIONS HAVE PURPOSES. We don't use them as fancy elements. Of course, in language there are well defined purposes and morphed purposes for each punctuation, but purposes none the less. If the punctuation has no function, it shouldn't be there. It should make clear what would otherwise be ambigious.

2) SCHOOL GRAMMAR DOESN'T ALWAYS WORK

Reiterating the first point, to serve its purpose, it can serve it in morphed or derived ways as well. We make rules so that they actually make the writing unambigious and stick with them accordingly, per client, or per purpose of writing. This, or we justify each punctuation with reason making decisions on the spot. Then you get to deal with people who stick to school grammar rules and they turn all your character-filled punctuation logic into a mess o.O (Rule here: Smileys replace full stops when at the end of a sentence. You can't have both.)

3) CHARACTER COMES FROM ANYWHERE, BUT THE RULES

When you write, you know what you've written is not perfect enough, by any standards, until it matches the picture in your head that you want to express. Punctuations are not the first thing on your mind; they come in later. They just get written and the writing finds the character it was looking for, so much in perfect balance. Like magic. But then, not really. Frankly speaking, only magicians can create something out of nothing. All writers are not magicians, and writing is NOT magic. You do find the few, when you find them; how and why must remain a mystery if you want their work to be appreciated as much (by yourself as well).

On the other hand, writing is also a technique and stereotyping it doesn't do any good, especially by the guys who are not paid to do it. There is a process and it must be followed to get that perfect balance. If the process isn't respected, we get boxed sets of rules regarding the usage of punctuations.

The sucky part is when you have to, then, box it into a set of rules, school English style. And especially when the stuff has no character, intrinsically, it is really difficult to insert any into it even with the finest of these rules.

We can stick to keeping headlines, which are full sentences, without full stops based on on-the-spot decisions, or always use a full stop for full sentences, headline or not, PERIOD (get the pun :)).

*SIGH*