Sunday, November 11, 2007

Weigh it...

The average description of the average libran would start with "balanced". Probably because of the scales, I'm guessing. But most often than not, the average libran does not have a totally balanced way of looking at everything. He/She does not stay in control and equilibrium and is not the person one would want around to solve an issue by balancing matters, or to give a totally unbiased opinion. However he/she'd be the perfect person to ask for a well thought and backed opinion (however skewed it may be).

The point to be driven is that a libran is a confused person in a lot of internal turmoil. He(assume the /she from here on please) breaks his head over non-issues and petty matters to achieve a well-balanced opinion on it. He seeks that equilibrium state but most often is in only a trying-to-get-there position. And his growing turmoil spills all around, irritating most around him; the people around do manage to see that he's not normal but they fail to understand his conflicts and associated trauma. A libran is not a calm or composed person by nature. He does of course, feel at some points that he's got the solution to his problem in hand and a well-weighed perspective on the matter - at which time he'd be serene (or so he thinks). He now has enough reason to battle out his policy with the universe. But the rest of the world does not see this as a tranquil state; it is a state of unbearably heavy stubbornness and a stone-like coldness to other opinions - an indifference that is not well-liked.

However, all the above non-positives and positives (as the relative case may be) are supposedly neutralized by what is called the libran charm - which we will not make any ground on.

We will observe some of my personal confusions and conflicts (that be a joy. To me).

I am a person of south Indian origin but my current (and past!) memory starts only from the age of 4, an age where I had already been in Bombay for some years. The cosmopolitan really helped me grew - in awareness of variant lifestyles and cultures, at the same time allowed me retain my south Indian roots; I could at least speak my mother tongue and know of some practices. But, naturally, I was different from the average south Indian. I wasn't aware of south Indian movies (a major culture drive factor in my opinion) nor was I fully aware of how it is to live like one. In strict senses (and some less strict ones as well), I was not south Indian. But at the same time, I was not a total...anything else (there is a lot more outside south India than just the so-called stereotype "north Indian"!). I was not a full Bombay person either. I was unacceptable in most circles - there was always a certain rule that I could never live up to.

I moved to Chennai for my undergrad. Chennai was supposedly my native place - where I had great fun over vacation trips. Naturally I had a great opinion of Chennai when I first arrived. Only, to my dismay, vacation trips and living were two entirely different things. The Chennai I had seen in the past was limited - to my relatives, a few sight-seeing spots and some miscellaneous others. This time it was plain culture shock. I was moving around with people from a different plane, lifestyle, mindset, and other related parameters. It wasn't fun anymore.

But as is every other college experience, this one was...important. I did open my windows to Chennai (to a fair degree at least) and took what I could from it. In other words, I continued (tried), involuntarily, the libran balance-act.

Was this entirely circumstantial? Would anyone else in my shoes feel the same? Probably. But I had conflicts in a lot of other areas too. I was unable to meet the norms back in Bombay as well and that seems to be a life equation (or non-equation!) now. I was not entirely religious but I wasn't a non-believer too. I had my personal practices. I was short-tempered, but not short enough to become THE guy. I like my subjects and have a lot of motivation towards them, but I'm not totally passionate - given a choice, I would probably still read comics for a living (for a sustainable income and medical plan of course). I was(am) not a total good boy, but I am not bad either. I love music and sing and play with a frenetic enthusiasm but I am nowhere near the best one in my house even! I am computer savvy; I use it for a lot of my purposes and can take it apart and put it together, troubleshoot and understand its working. But I cannot write even a print program in any language to save my life! I am not chauvinist and I do respect women, but I do not respect all of their talk and deed just because of the latters' origin. I like a clean house and I do work to keep it that way (at least now!) but it is still not strikingly clean! I do not like to spend a lot of money but I am no thrift worm either! I do not like to get on the wrong side of people and do try to help such situations but I am not a diplomat either! I am not a stereotype person but at the same time I am not driven too much off the average in any direction! I cut the examples here and conclude on them that this brings a lot of confusion and turmoil in my life. But I love living with them.

I will not patronize on how I deal with them (I don't know how I do it myself but I know that I love it like this!) but it probably has something to do with acceptance and subscription to Gandhian thought (but I still like Metallica and rebellious dialogue! - if that can make a striking conflict...sort of...!). And my zodiac persona (I believe in the Zodiac but not entirely!), I guess, helps my take parts of each trait, put them together and make a formative picture - a structure that allows me to rationalize through the chaos. Or is it something else...? I debate...

- A stereotype yet off-center libran


firstmonsoon said...

it's probably the dynamic equilibrium that you guys are known for.

Bala Venkatakrishnan said...

Well it has to be dynamic. Static equilibrium would make us vegetables.