Emotions are essentially the colours of human life. Colours have different shades, these shades may differ ever so slightly but each is a different colour (you may as well check the hex representation!) in its own right! Greater is the number of shades in a painting, the more colourful is its appearance. But for a colourful painting to translate into a mesmerising piece of art, all the colours need to be in the right place! But is the same true with a person brimming up with different emotions? Is there a prescribed definition for “right emotion at the right place” ? Don’t think so and that’s what makes a living personality dynamic and different from a static painting. (I know the above text has something in it that makes it sound like a mathematical proof, I am an engineer after all, and more mathematical interpretation is unfortunately going to follow).
The expression of an emotion, should it always be spontaneous and unplugged? Or should an emotion come out after actualizing the logistics of the situation at hand? (That sounds so supply-chain-ish). You may agree neither is the best way to go about! (This is going to be the style for this blog, ask something and then deny it!) Expressing every emotion just like that, takes the fun out of it, and has a dull notion of predictability associated with it. At the same time, the conscious suppression of an emotion is a deep and intense realization which makes this feeling itself a heavy-weight when ranked amongst its peers. The people we describe as normal are generally emoting on the line in between these two extremes. And yes these “normal” people are more inclined towards one or the other side of the “emotional divide” (This phrase is a nice candidate to be the title of this one...let’s see)
Let’s analyse if we have an “Emotional Scale” (let’s call it something fancy...say The EmScale™ :P ... you must be able to think of something better...) from 1 to 10 in order of increasing emotional expression, what should be the ideal world mean be? Five may pop up as an answer, which implies there are equal number of people on both sides of the emotional divide. But is it so simple? Can a person have a fixed rating on this scale for his entire life in every situation? May be in an ideal world yes, but the “normal” being is dynamic enough to have a fluctuating reading. He could be “1” at a given point and change to “10” is the spur of moment. For instance in an argument he could range from “1” to “10” with the simple tool of voice modulation! The equilibrium of an argument can essentially be defined as closeness of the mean value of persons involved being close to “5” (Wow, see now I am defining terms based on what I just defined!). So it is actually the instantaneous mean value of “5” which we are looking for in the larger sense, for a given situation, for a given group of people and for the world as a whole! (I know it is so stupidly mathematical, but it is my blog, and I felt like writing that sentence!)
So what is your value on this scale? Or let me correct myself and say what is your current or instantaneous value? (Which may prompt you to say that the correct parameter to define a person on the basis of this scale is “Standard Deviation”... but let’s leave it for higher mathematicians!)
Let’s analyse if we have an “Emotional Scale” (let’s call it something fancy...say The EmScale™ :P ... you must be able to think of something better...) from 1 to 10 in order of increasing emotional expression, what should be the ideal world mean be? Five may pop up as an answer, which implies there are equal number of people on both sides of the emotional divide. But is it so simple? Can a person have a fixed rating on this scale for his entire life in every situation? May be in an ideal world yes, but the “normal” being is dynamic enough to have a fluctuating reading. He could be “1” at a given point and change to “10” is the spur of moment. For instance in an argument he could range from “1” to “10” with the simple tool of voice modulation! The equilibrium of an argument can essentially be defined as closeness of the mean value of persons involved being close to “5” (Wow, see now I am defining terms based on what I just defined!). So it is actually the instantaneous mean value of “5” which we are looking for in the larger sense, for a given situation, for a given group of people and for the world as a whole! (I know it is so stupidly mathematical, but it is my blog, and I felt like writing that sentence!)
So what is your value on this scale? Or let me correct myself and say what is your current or instantaneous value? (Which may prompt you to say that the correct parameter to define a person on the basis of this scale is “Standard Deviation”... but let’s leave it for higher mathematicians!)
5 comments:
wow!! its simply ...no not simply...but mathematically so amusing!! I wish there could acually be some EmScale with Emscreens situated on evryone's forehead or somewhere where it is inevitable visible...because people now a days actually live with a calculated amount of happiness...and miss out the probablity factorials or to say..they don't try enough permutation combinations of the situations around..to feel actually happy!! :)
EmScreens on foreheads!...and then you will react seeing that number for a 7 you will behave like 3 :P...but then it makes things too predictable :)
and why "Emerald" ... it can be something like "Drishti Magoo" :)
An interesting post, but I was so much in the flow of wholeidea, that I felt as if an abrupt ending, something that should have been followed!
Anyhow, I really 'luv'ed this 'justification' style of writing! :)
Whats the point here!? :-/
@Luv
Well, I really don't remember what made me write Emerald...but nearest explanation... ''Drishti Magoo'' would have simplified the things :P pseudonyms sound interesting!!
Post a Comment