11.3.09

rated B, epic-wknd: macro-micro game




i just had a small rated-B epic wknd and all i could say is that sometimes things have way of resolving themselves in the ways one does not expect. especially if it has to with one person to another. whether it be a companionship, friendship, casual acquaintance, etc. the line is always so hazy and people always move around in relation to you, making it rather impossible to define such things for the third person.

now, you may wonder what the heck im talking about, or even hoping that i will spill some gory details of monkey's 'epic' wknd. well, you arent going to get any of that, so don't get your hopes up. i do not believe public announcement for private matters.

now most people would assume then it was a case of private matter. i love the way this works. haha. this exactly the same reason why i have the 'adult content' disclaimer on my blog. just for the hell of it. whenever people see that, they expect hype, scandal, gossips, etc. etc., forgetting that it's just a warning, of perhaps, may be, which may not even be true. most of the time, it should be noted as warning for 'immature' or 'childish' materials warning anyways.
(look at comedy channel or adult channels. has nothing to do with maturity but usually of lack there of)

what really makes me wonder is the idea of perception.
it is very easy to give a definition to something when you just glance at something. because you arent seeing the details and differences, it becomes rather automatic to gentrify and simplify something, whether it's closer or far from the actual thing. like talking about brown shoes or something. the more you look at it, the more details you will recognize. the height of the heels, materials, the dye process, is it raced or slip-on, does it have buckles or not? matte finished or shiny? what size? for man or for woman? may be unisex? the list goes on for... well, for awhile, i mean there are many people, not just a few who dedicates their lives for shoes. but if you arent interested in brown shoes at this particular moment, well, it's just another pair of brown shoes. heck, you may even just describe it as shoes. brown, black, red, whatevers.

it is easy to explain and break things into elements and sections; basically, one could always divide an image or a concept further, if necessary, until one get to the absolute simple concept, now indivisible. even then, one could further breach out by connecting one indivisible idea to another simple or complex idea. depending on your conversation or context, one uses the micro-macro, singular-multiple contexts freely, as tools of explanation and the subsequent comprehension.
case in point, even the dull ones could pass through school if they are taught well and they are willing to be taught.

and here comes the big catch-22 though. you cant teach perception. or ability for perception. many can learn to become a proficient home-fixer, but none of them may become an architect, beside the architect who happened to be a home-fixer; similar thing here. it all looks deceivingly similar, similar however, meaning not the same. and no matter how hard one tries to become the other, it's well... not only painful, labourous but also impossible. but hey, we need both, house-fixers and architect.

how did we get here, discussing perception? because in a sense, everyone perceives the world a little differently, and despite of many similarities you may find from the surface, one always realizes that what may have been similar may not be similar at all. from the external point of view, two different persons can have many mutual interests. music. literature. hobby. food. whatevers. that's not the point. the point is that though two people may seem similar, they may not be. and as time progresses, two individuals who may have been closer, may no longer be so close. usually that's also alright, it is a-okay to have a company who is really different from you. even encouraged, really. but the problem arises when the difference in perception becomes larger and larger, eventually creating this big distance between two individuals, a drift. and when the distance, or the difference become a cause for a suffering for both parties, that's when one needs to make a decision. where does this relation need to go- not where you want it to go?

in recent weeks, mr. salamander and i have been conversing through small window that does not even really exists. now, i can sense you getting interested in knowing who this mr. salamander is. well, once again, that is for me to know and for you to figure it out, should you be really bored. conversing in binary codes over the invisible connection, i thought that perhaps this conversations wont work at all. however, the observations beg to differ; not only it's been enjoyable, it's also been evocative and provocative.

moving from topic to another, his incessant need for new stimulation and amusements are fulfilled by monkey's random thoughts and non-linear, non-sensible chains of actions. nothing grand here, it's not like we talk about the truth of the universe or anything. just enough to keep one listening to another, then volley back so that the other cant help it but to response in all sincerity. this only works because we both receive things in similar manner, though we are very different people from the outside. in a sense, the outward crystallization of the persona differs enough that we arent seen as similar people, but since the way we perceive the world is similar, the outer differences are not only tolerable, but also immensely enjoyable.

au contraire, monkey and the chemist, has much in common from the outside, but the inner sense of the self and the world differs wildly. from the outside, it may even look that the two are almost identical. but once you crack and take a look into the heart of the matter, the two sees the world in almost opposing point of view. now, chemist really did try to see the things from monkey's point of view and monkey did an okay job of breaking down and explaining how she sees the world. however, monkey also realizes that she cannot make the chemist to adapt to her point of view. because the chemist perceives the world in the entirely different manner. what one sees as virtue becomes others' vice, quick as a wink.

can monkey and chemist co-exist? yes. they even may benefit from each others' company, especially since they are so different. but when the differences between two identities are so big that it is causing trouble to one another, it becomes a necessity to adjust the relationship so that the unnecessary trouble no longer exist and the pain caused by such trouble to have sufficient time to heal.

it's never about who is better than who. not even about who is 'more like' who. it's about seeing the world and perceiving the world with a true sense of self, and being able to share it, whether you contrast or concur with another. as long as the processes are enjoyable, i see no problems. however, the epic wknd was a necessity, because the differences were becoming alarmingly stressful. but since it's only a b-rated epic, am sure there'll be more fiascoes to come even just from this wk. and monkey will be having mr. salamander laughing and chuckling on the other side of the window. and may be some laughter will be infectious enough to make it all the way to the book bomber, whose been immersed in total sense of reality according to a succinct email (much like him in person, makes me laugh)
and i have funny feeling it'll involve much booze-only policy.

that was a good one, book bomber.
it's also hilarious that book bomber and mr. salamander, who never have met one another, plays the similar word games. i think they understand what i mean by that,
and while that take a bit of time to settle, monkey's off to shower to get that zamboni track off her brain. ugh.

No comments:

Post a Comment