Modeling

Nope.  Not the ‘industry’ of hip-swaying figures donning show-offy creative (for some) works .  All those looking for a rant or drool please refer to the nearest row of tabloid-glossies at your favourite (or unfavourite, whichever it may be) location.

I’m referring to the art of conceptualizing and describing (or representing) something.  At times, it’s literal – as in building cute miniatures of high-rise condo towers, complete with a jogging-barbie-with-headphones and a few models (yes now from the runway) playing tennis on the built-in courts.  In some cases it’s highly abstract – as in extreme secularism or nationalism being other forms of a rigid religious practice (where religion is a way of life).

The (unfortunate?) people who get used to the idea of modeling (and therefore seeing patterns of similarity) often fall prey to what I call a “disconnection syndrome”.  Because some logical minds see similarity and demand consistency.  If you do this in situation A, you should do the same in situation B, because both situations are the same.  Sadly, while it may feel intellectually satisfying (there’s a reason why join-the-dots is still a popular game in all age groups), and it feels great to hear our own voices, it doesn’t win any popularity votes.  People (yours truly included) may be comfortable in choosing their level of livable hypocrisy, but generally don’t like to be called on it.  (Golden time-tested rule of societal living – no one likes to be made to feel dumb, regardless of the reality.)  Therefore, the outspoken logical mind either falls into social disfavour, or chooses to curb the “outspoken” part.  Disconnection and disconnection.  Or at least it feels like it.  Until another epiphany occurs.

It’s not necessary to share all the pictures that have been drawn on the mind’s canvas.  (This is where the dots go crazy and join another stream for fun.)  The same argument holds for when proponents of a belief system (religion, environmentalists, animal rights folks, vegetarians, and many others, so no one feel excluded!) just HAVE to convince others.  It’s a compulsion.  (I’ve been told OCD’s curable.)  I repeat, it’s not necessary to show-and-tell, or “convince”, others.  People will see what they want to and choose to see.

So be happy that you see patterns (better than seeing dead people, IMHO).  Keep them to yourself and be judicious even when asked.  And if you do find someone else who sees them too, try not to hug them so tight as to crush the life out of them.  Too few of them already.

And even fewer as cute as Bruce Willis!

Marriages End. Families Don’t.

Allow me to begin by acknowledging the blatant plagiarism in naming the post, taken from a book that I haven’t read, but came across in an article.  Good things are meant to be reused.

It’s a new holiday in Ontario: Family Day, third Monday of every February.  I am grateful for an extra holiday (work brought home notwithstanding), and the naming of it as such.  In speaking of why Premier McGuinty instituted this holiday, he said “One of the things that I recognized was that never have more parents spent more time working outside the home than at any point in our history than they do today.  I think the single most valuable commodity, so to speak, for our families would be time spent together, so that’s the motivation behind this.”

I have also encountered many reminders of how this so-critical institution is suffering, all over the globe.  A man still hurting from the pain and abuse of a step-father, over 30-40 years ago.  A woman in constant search for affirmation by her father for the last 3-4 decades, whom she’s never seen or known, and who continues to ignore her existence.    Marriages breaking up within 2 months, or after 20-30 years (when the kids leave, scarred from witnessing decades of anger in the house, and thereby entering into their own severely jeopardized relationships). Two in five (38.3%) marriages end by 30th anniversary.  One in 5 (19%) of Canadian children aged 0 to 14 did not live with both parents in 2001.  I don’t know if other important measures (such as siblings not talking to each other) are even measured, recorded or reported.

I could go on but it hurts.

In an ever-present quest to improve myself (and boy do I have my work cut out!), I was studying improvisation to help with quick-thinking.  A critical, given rule for improv to work is an attitude of “serve and support”.  This means, in a scene (or real life scenario), my job and focus is to help the other person achieve their objective, trusting that this will help me achieve mine (of making the overall scene work).  This is an inviolable rule, the ignoring of which will bring the scene crashing down.  And it is to be practiced unconditionally, that is, irrespective of what the other person may have done right or wrong.

Service, like excellence, is not a task; it’s an attitude and habit.

One of the people I care about and respect much, she and I continuously remind each other of a Gandhi quote: “Life is one indivisible whole.” In all the successful relationships I have observed, which give me hope (despite the statistics of human relationship breakdown), I see this rule of improv being applied – they truly enjoy and focus on serving other people, without ego or selfishness, and in turn making the whole scene work out beautifully, like a masterpiece of musical composition.

Here are some other rules of improv: Trust, Commitment,  Awareness, Concentration, Energy, Listening, Give and Take, Yes And… (i.e. not refuting, rather going along), Attending to (i.e. paying close attention).

What would happen to our families (and marriages), if we practiced all these, all the time.  Economic chaos for one thing – what would all the lawyers, therapists,  etc. do?  But maybe, just maybe, our scene of life could work out better.

One indivisible whole.

Cutting God out of the picture!

In some muslim countries, movies are censored. And it’s not always the … er… “mature” bits, there are other kinds of “forbidia” as well (yes I created that word and am sticking by it!) Items of potential misuse by personnel that have yet to find anything productive to do, are also stricken/ snipped/ abbreviated/ edited… you get the drift. And this is done with complete and blatant disregard to the story, or the director’s sensibilities. Not even a condolence card or word of sympathy reaches those bereaved by the fate of the movie post-scissorum.

So Bruce Almighty plays in the theatres in one such country. With all the “God” scenes cut out of the picture. Did I mention it was the movie Bruce Almighty? So in the entire picture, there’s nothing left of Morgan Freeman, and the audience, who’ve already educated themselves via internet or other means we won’t discuss, are there enjoying a comedy movie, but laughing at parts the director had no intention of making funny! That is, the making up of the missing story bits with their own imaginations!

I watched the entire uncensored movie without for a moment holding any God-like feelings towards Morgan. I guess I’m part of the cynical jaded generation that has lost faith in the “truthfulness” of movies. This may be more harmful to the faithful who are more innocent than myself, and therefore are the loudest to protest. Perhaps there should be a special rating for such movies, with a minimum level of maturity, not measured in units of time on earth of just … “existing”.

And for those well-meaning folks who are touchy-feely about sensitivities, my vote would be to prioritize and protect those who are the weakest, needing protection. God isn’t in that picture either.

=> Retold with due credit and reverence to a dear person in my life, who is an incredible story-teller, and related this much better than I could!

Opine away not

As one “refines” with time (read: grows older), things that have always been nagging at the back of mind start becoming louder. [That's not a good thing, since all that noise in the "foreground" of thought is what adds to road accidents and unsuccessful romances.]

Anyhow, I’ve always read biographies of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and wondered… if I was on the “other side” of the writer (for those hooked on hindi movies and need everything painfully spelled out, this means a muslim reading a non-muslim author and vice versa), why would I trust your objectivity? I don’t know if – in a subject of that sort – it is even possible to be objective. And I don’t appreciate the weaving in and out of facts and opinions without making clear which is which. Not in a biography. In “The DaVinci Code” or “Chah-e-Babul“, that’s needed and what keeps me riveted.

I explain (or try to), my question.

Say I am a non-muslim writer, and not writing one of those “all is wrong” kind of books. I clearly don’t believe he was a prophet, but I am writing about a person who claimed to be one. Can I write an objective biography, objectively analyze all sources and not pick and choose, and leave the book without introducing any bias of “disbelief”?

Conversely, writing as a muslim, can I objectively write about his life while entertaining the possibility that he might not be a prophet?

It sounds a bit like not believing in global warming and writing a book about a dedicated environmentalist’s efforts. It can be done, sure. People write (and read) all sorts of stuff (witness this blog, and I rest my case!)

But was it an “objective” account? So far, I haven’t been convinced by either side’s writing. And I’m only objecting to the claim of “impartial” narratives.

If you don’t claim to be something (e.g. an objective narrator), you might get every benefit of doubt. But if you do… remember what happens to people in glass houses. In addition to other people using the walls as target practice for the olympics stone-throwing competition, it gets pretty hot in there.

Remember the global warming that isn’t happening?

Teach me faith

Ontario is debating whether to further spend our tremendous budget surplus on doing the same thing umpteen times, i.e. teach kids that 1+1=3 (or however many you want it to be – at any point in time – if you’re an accountant, or statistician, or politician, or Conrad Black). Because we can’t figure out a way to take a bunch of kids, put them in the same school, teach them all the same common subjects, and give them the option to take some specialized subjects based on their interests or preferences. That’s a highly sophisticated concept of “electives” that hasn’t made its way to the education system yet. Oh wait… unless you’re opting to study in French. In which case you’ll get triple the funding and honorary citizenship of Quebec.

Of course offering electives does not address the core problem: why in God’s name would we want to teach our kids ANYTHING about that social pariah of subjects… the R-rated word… “religion” (shudder!!)? They should grow up knowing less than a common snail in Pakistan what the whole fuss is all about, or what are all the glorious reasons each faith (and its remotely visible followers) should be avoided like the plague. Ignorance and avoidance are the mature approaches to resolving social segregation.

IMHO, a politician in this time and space would have an easier win if s/he fought for “workplace safety regulations” for prostitution (a legal profession in Canada, mind you) than trying to get children actually informed and educated about religion. They (kids, politicians and prostitutes alike) might grow up and (another shudder) choose to be religious, heaven forbid!