I have always maintained that if you look hard enough, or have nothing better to do, you can always find some philosophical meaning behind anything. That does rather diminish the whole "brooding philosopher" image, but it's really quite logical, and the best part is; you can never go wrong, because whatever you might think is always based on your own personal experiences, learnings, habits or conditionings all in all. Which may seem rather closed minded, but that would be going off topic. The fact is, everything is relative. What you might think or infer is always right according to you. So your own philosophy have about as much chance at being wrong as me being right in Calculus (For those who don't know me, or the happier ones who don't know calculus, that's 0). However, having done so with quite a few things, What struck me was the distinct difference between what one might see in natural subjects and those that are man made. It's not quite antonymous, though. It's rather like the difference between sleepily dozing off on a hammock and solving a Rubik's cube underwater in mittens while on LSD. (The comparison is not meant to be dramatic, but accurate.)
Which leads me to my point, that all man made objects or even situations are reflections of his own psyche. Anything and everything whose grandpa was a blueprint unfailingly represents the mortal mindset. That's not so hard (that's what she.....oh....), you might say but when you extrapolate, we arrive at a very old saying. "Necessity is the mother of all inventions." Every need stems from a certain mental stimuli, so why wouldn't anything that would stem from an invention? And why wouldn't an invention from the invention?(Yo dawg.)
It is quite like the Russian Matryoshka dolls. The way every new discovery, every new application paves the way for a new one. Now there are 2 things that came to my mind when I thought of it this way, and because my brain is the love child of entropy and Peter Griffin, completely unrelated to each other. Firstly, our self consuming world being proof, that we have ignored the fine line between need and greed quite thoroughly. Where exactly is this line? Or is it merely a grey area? And secondly, If the world at all was created by a higher power, is it the reflections of it's basic nature?
My mind is pretty much custard at the moment, so a topic requiring any kind of mental strain is more than likely to turn me into a gorilla. What I can do, though is look at a very tiny aspect of my own hypothesis. The most direct way of confirming it is marketing. Though immediately it may sound far-fetched , it does have a tiny strand of relevance to it. Advertising, marketing requires a study of their target customer, assuming one to be ideal. It plays to the core nature of their market, it looks through their eyes, walks in their shoes, and explores every aspect of their lives to give a surprisingly accurate idea of their needs, wants and expectations. This, albeit from a commercial point of view, is essentially the first step towards a holistic understanding of the human mind. What people like me do, however, is take it down a notch. To take every possible quality we find, and find it's stimulus. After weeding out the few unique gems, we have a fairly plausible assumption of the core characteristics of an ideal representative of a group of people.
This is a rather huge topic, not just in terms of sheer size, but also in terms of the realizations it has the potential to lead to. It's one worth thinking about though, and in my eyes, rewarding as well.
Me being the incomplete me that I am, would love to steal your ideas and think about them, so if there's anything you think would be more accurate added to or subtracted from my writings, I'd love to learn from you, so please do leave feedback.
 |
| Matryoshka Dolls : The Original Inception |
