Elegy

I valued you only when I bade you adieu If I had another chance, I would've

breathed you deeper

the years ended... in just a moments few

My freedom -

I didn't answer, and I didn't explain

I lived like a human..., no.., a man!

My music -

Your form is changed

You neither lull, nor liven

I look for you

a tune somewhere, or a lilt hidden.

My friends -

I loved and laughed

You'll be with me, when alone I cry

In a sea of strangers and snowstorms in the sky.

My self -

I laboured and birthed

Toiled for your form

You were my pride!

Now I bury you - a cold corpse...

unwept, unwreathed.

Embellishing the Basic - Food (with all its sauces)

Embellishing the basic - this is probably a fundamental human tendency, but it made me think of the possible reasons. No, its not an opulence-austerity judgement I'm trying to make here. Its something else. Its how a basic need goes to become a social event, a celebration even. How it grows around itself appropriate codes, conduct and context to govern it.

Lets take food for instance. Scientifically, a basic need to sustain life. So simple... and objective! When and how, then, did it become what it is??

The connotations of food are as varied as any socio-normative paradigm can conjure - limitless almost!

For one, it is how we celebrate - the feasts for a festival, the birthday cake, the spread at a wedding; it is how we mourn - the fasts, the lents, abstinence from meats. It becomes an expression of love between a mother and her baby. It is the mark of social class, of religion, and of caste.

In different societies and different contexts, extravagance and austerity in food assume differntial values - while vegetarianism (and hence austerity in a way) is a mark of the upper caste and therefore, often denotes a "more evolved" state of being in Hindu society, the extravaganza of a wedding feast is what avers the social status of a family.

At Mughal durbars, there were upto 80 dishes and delicacies served at banquets for royal guests. Moreover, the number of items was directly proportional to the social hierarchy of the guest. It was common to serve 80 dishes to a Maharajah and 70 to a British Governor-General at the same dinner table! Here food becomes a mark of respect, and acknowledgement of ones power and title.

The food eaten by one religious community is haraam for another. The pork-beef tussle is legendary in this. The poor animals who died for the cause of a good meal would cringe at the number of human lives they have claimed through communal riots. Infact, wasn't the 1857 Mutiny a result of these food taboos?!

In the absence of the pious who are well versed with the basis (and books) of their peity, food becomes a proxy symbol...oh, and so much easier as well - its just a matter of eating 'this', not eating 'that', and going absolutely ballistic if 'that' is eaten or served in your presence!

Food also becomes the mode of aculturation. It is common to see dominant cultural groups impress (and impose) minorities through the food route - foods, ways of eating, and methods of cooking. While interesting fusion food cuisines have emerged in more recent times with the masala chai shorbet, we cannot disregard the most relished impositions of the Central Asian kebabs and pilafs by the Mughals and the Portuguese sorpatel and bebinca on Indian palates. The British, thankfully, could not conquer much on the food front... the Indian palate is probably far more discerning and resilient than the Indian mind!

The ban on cow slaughter and therefore, on beef consumption in certain parts of the country - affecting food practices of the thousands of tribal groups, and an active promotion of vegetarianism through recommended dietary allowances and calorie requirements for the country, are again aculturation - sanskritisation.

Then there is the whole world of food taboos and the preparation and consumption of food. The classification of foods as hot and cold has its basis from Ayurvedic texts. Food was the cure, and to be consumed based on body types, seasons and emotional/social states. Widowed women often do not eat meat, onion and garlic in otherwise non-vegetarian Hindu households as they are 'hot' foods causing sexual heat!

The stronghold of caste is exerted on food like in no other aspect of life. Who cooks the food, and therefore, who can consume it, is determined by caste. Eating food cooked or touched by a person of the 'lower' caste will require elaborate (and often barbaric) rituals to sanctify the victim Brahman. Here food becomes the mode of purity and pollution.

Then, of course, there is the order of eating food - the patriarch and the men first, the children and then the women. Food now becomes the protector of patriarchy and social order.

Food today has perhaps become more "embellished" (to use my original term) than ever before. Its so much less of a basic necessesity today (with more economic abundance around), and so much more of everything else it could possibly ever be! Your knowledge and palate for gourmet and exotic cuisines determines your cool quotient; the dinner destination determines the fate of the date; and the 'ladies who lunch' thrives on exclusivity. To think of it, food was the basis of imperialism - the spice trade is what tingled Europe's taste buds at first; and then it was food that has become the most powerful symbol of globalisation - in the form of the not-so-humble hamburger by omnipresent McDonalds.

With so much riding on it - from social status to faith, purity and love, kingdoms political and corporate, is it a surprise that food has to be embellished - it has to look irresistable...good enough to eat!

Isis

For I am the first and the last. I am the honoured one and the scorned one I am the whore and the holy one.

I am the wife and the virgin. I am the mother and the daughter. I am the members of my mother. I am the barren one and many are my sons. I am she whose wedding is great, and I have not taken a husband. I am the midwife and she who does not bear. I am the solace of my pains. I am the bride and the bridegroom, and it is my husband who begot me.

Illusion and reality.

Everything and nothing you can ever be. I am the mother of my father and the sister of my husband, and he is my offspring.... Give heed to me. I am the one who is disgraced and the great one.

Whether Karma or Kismet?

According to the 10th card of the major arcana - the wheel of fortune - everything is cyclical...If this is the explanation, complications and curiosities arise.

Are life events completely out of one’s control? Could I have led a different life? If I had made one different choice, would it have been all different – the idea of karma? Or would they have happened one way or the other - the idea of kismet?

What happens in my life is more or less the same. The themes are constant, the context changing.

Well, this then, seems like kismet. The same themes in this life and previous ones. The goals that I sought are the same – love, happiness, equity and freedom. These are actually not as grand as they sound. When it’s not political, but personal, these are simple pursuits. Everyone desires them. My battles are also the same – struggles and rebellion towards achieving those goals.

I hurt for the same reasons – the same betrayal, the fundamentalism, the hegemony of organised religion, the patriarchy. Again, these are not grand, but are phenomena that subsume and devour my identity. Or push me to the margins, sometimes the victim, sometimes the witch, sometimes whore.

Whether it’s a young newly married woman in Celtic France, driven to suicide trying to convince the love of her life about her fidelity; or the young girl who grew up to become a cold cynic after being betrayed a hundred times over; or the pagan woman in sixteenth century Spain willing herself to die to escape from the atrocities of the Church; or the strong independent woman being thrown out of her house on grounds of religion and gender in a so-called modern cosmopolitan society; or the young intelligent attractive woman, still looking for love and acceptance.

The themes are the same. Maybe this soul is bound to undergo these same experiences, same scripts, same emotions.

Regression explains this by stating “closure”. The soul needs closure of pent up emotions, unresolved feelings, unfulfilled desires, interrupted happiness, incomplete revenge or incomplete forgiveness.

This brings us back to karma. Not necessarily only of actions, but of memories and emotions. The wheel of fortune turns to remind us of what we had done and what we need to do. The “hell” is not some fabled burning pit, but the cyclical scripts of lives. The heaven is not through some improbable pearly gates, but in breaking this cycle, transcending these scripts and finding peace.

Till then it’s a continuing debate of whether karma or kismet…

For the love of monotony!

"May you live in interesting times.." is a Chinese curse. I coudn't agree more! - with the fact that it is a curse, I mean. Well, change is good, the only constant - as the cliche goes; the ups and downs and the variety that add spice to our lives...but there's nothing more I crave than monotony. The comfort of the predictable, the straight line without blips - the sizes ranging from mole hills to mountains in my life! I know I can't take stagnation, and I feel stagnated every quarter. So I should be the the last person to say I crave monotony. The condradiction in this is evident, bordering on schizophrenia. The constant change, growth, ambition, activity, Type A personality have probably reached the peak and is now gowing down... the adrenaline rush is bound to be followed by a parasympathetic trough. That is probably what this is. A simple physiological phenomenon. Well, atleast if this is the explanation, I'm at peace. People go through mid-life crises and do things that often shake up their entire beautifully well laid out clockwork lives. The escape from monotony at any cost. The reassurances that we seek through change. Attention from a different man/woman after decades of a committed relationship reassures us of our appeal and sexuality, the change of a job or career reassures us of our skills and abilities. A crazy hairstyle sometimes is enough to reassure us. I know some women who change hairstyles right after breaking up with a boyfriend. This is for reassurance and resurgence: "I am still attractive and lovable".... (and at the same time) "this is the new me" (subtext- who will not date losers like these!!) This is ironic. Change, that shakes up and shatters the world as we know it, can be so reassuring at times. I, in my crises, want monotony. I seek it for the same reassurance and resurgence, though. The parasympathetic trough is now reached tidal proportions and is impatient to reach the stability and predictability. But this is again the same craving for change and movement from the current constant, isn't it? The schizophrenic contradictions recur...

The Personal is Political...and the Political Personal

My recent experiences have just proved that the "personal is political" - beyond doubt!

Or perhaps even the other way round. Concepts, experiences and theories that I have engaged with in an academic or ideological capacity are suddenly very real, affecting my life in a direct way.

I should perhaps start with the tribulations of renewing my passport. My passport issued previously in Guwahati had expired in April, 2010. I applied for a new passport on April 8. I am tempted to describe my horrific date with the passport office, experiencing bureaucracy at its monopolistic best, but I will not go into that recount.

Anyway, so I applied for a Bombay passport, since I have not lived in Guwahati for 10 years now, and out of those, 7 have been in Bombay. With all documents ever possible. Infact I had to wait about 6 months just so that I complete a year at the same address to make me eligible for a Bombay passport.

After the 4 stipulated days, a police constable came home at around 11 am to verify my address and the fact that I exist as a person! I was of course, not there at home in the middle of the day on a working day. But well....

He told my sister how difficult it would be to get a passport, since I am only a tenant.

The next day I took leave to meet the cop. He came over. I showed overflowing hospitality (as instructed by experienced friends!). Here a drink or money was advised. But I obviously I couldn't offer alcohol (being a woman!), neither did I feel I could offer money without getting atleast an indirect hint (although I finally did pay at a later date to get the work done).

He went through all my papers. Seemed satisfied. The only problem was the fact that I did not own the house, neither was I living at my parents' house, nor was it my husband's house! This became quite an issue. My references in the neighbourhood was my colleague who has known me for about 4 years - a 33 year old unmarried female vice president, and the other one is of my dearest friends who has known me for 7 years - a 34 year old gay man.

The cop insisted I cite references who were "married" with "family" in the vicinity... and I realised that I don't know any such people!

The fact of being married assumed a completely skewed sense of significance. The fact of knowing, or not knowing, married people who can vouch for me, compromised my credibility.

Somehow the whole process almost became a verification of my character as a woman - a single woman - than of my citizenship.

The other ordeal came from my apartment building society. Being in a conservative Muslim housing society, both me and my sister were offensive just by virtue (pun intended!!) of our existence. We didn't even have to try! No matter what clothes we wore, we would seem strangely naked - we were not veiled; we went out to work and came back at times dictated by our work not familial deadlines - that was offensive; we had friends, male friends - which was even more offensive.

One of the watchmen misbehaved first with my sister (about which I complained), and then with me when I returned one night at about 1 am to find him sleeping and him threatening to not open the gate. I did remind him, quite scathingly, about the fact that it was his job as a watchman to open the gate, irrespective of what time any of the residents came home.

The next night I returned home to find a letter STUCK on my front door (and not delivered at the doorstep in an addressed envelope like the million letters that I have received), asking my licensor to terminate my leave and license agreement. The reason cited was my altercation with the watchman - apparently I had threatened him with some unidentified men. The letter further made nasty and vile insinuations on my character as an unmarried woman.

Although in retrospect, I should have expected the housing society to support the watchman (or probably even incite him to misbehave as a coercive tactic to get rid of me), it did come as a rude shock at that moment!

I met the secretary of the society the next morning. Nothing was done - either about correcting the false incident, or against the watchman. I wrote a letter inquiring the reasons for the discrimination - why on the basis of a verbal complaint from a watchman was a judgement passed against me, and why nothing was done on the basis of my complaint against the same watchman.

But I knew these were rhetorics.

I knew there was a much larger agenda in getting rid of a woman like me - an independent unmarried woman. There were no personal reasons for this animosity, but political ones. I was, to begin with, a Hindu woman in a Muslim society. Over and above, I was not a Hindu housewife, but unmarried and unveiled. I was a constant reminder - a slap on their faces - of the symbols that they were trying to destroy and repress. I embodied all that was haraam!

Both these sets of experiences would have been avoided if I was a married woman. I realised that status in the state and the society can only be attained through prescribing to conventions and institutions. And status for an unmarried woman is never devoid of morality. By being unattached within the parameters of marriage, I give the authority to both the state and the society to pass judgement on my "moral character".

The personal, truly is political... and the political becomes too personal!

An Inquiry into the Feminine Principle

It is of little wonder why the concept of the feminine has survived even after strategic and concerted efforts to destroy it, or to tame it in certain cases. It is also of little wonder why these efforts have persisted.

First to take the second issue. The feminine is threatening! It is a contradiction to the very basis of our social organisation - patriarchy. Here I do not mean dominance of men over women, but rather the dominance of all masculine over all feminine - of positivisms over phenomenologies, of rationality over creativity; of economies over cosmologies.

It is the need to be uniform that drives society today, not the need to be free. The freedom is notional, subscribing clearly to prescribed definitions, not amenable to individual interpretations. This is the only way how the masculine can prevail and thrive. Sameness, rationality, solidity are its pillars.

The basis of all institutions in society today is this principle of the masculine. The state, the government, marriages, economies, religions... thats how they are sustained.

The feminine principle is about freedom. It is not necessarily the contradiction of the masculine, but just the freedom to BE.

Creativity, expression, emotion are fluid concepts. They cannot hold things together in the same way that sameness, rationality and solidity do. They themselves are beyond definition, abmiguous... Being boundless, limitless, they cannot be the basis for rigidity.

Within the divine feminine, space exists for every being, for every identity. There is no conflict, as the basis is acceptance of existence. The celebration of life in all its forms and experiences. It is not about taking sides, but of maintaining the balance of life. Of oneness, but not sameness. It is a continuum without compartments. Life and death both become the same experience - one being "oneness" with the world, and the other "oneness" with the other-world. The principle is of energy - shakti (the personification of which is the Goddess).

For hierarchies and materialism to survive, the masculine principle has to dominate. Only if there is "one truth" can there be an outgroup, the "other". Only if there is an "other" can finite resources be owned and powers be maintained. Only if powers are contained in that "one truth" can there be structure and stratification in society - the basis of good governance!

This explains the concerted efforts since centuries (atleast since the begining of "civilisation" and more so since the end of the "Dark Ages") to destroy the feminine principle.

It is seen as a threat to the structure and solidity of organised, civilised society. It is a threat to the preservation of power within compartments.

The acceptance of all expression and of all choice will render most of politics and perhaps all of economics redundant. This is seen as the begining of all anarchy - a return to, for instance, paganism over cleanly organised religion! It will signify the common ownership of resources, leading to a failure in creating wealth!

The feminine principle, however, will survive - as long as there is life. This is because the very principle of life is based on the divine feminine. The energy for survival, the co-existence and co-dependence with all other beings and energies, innovations, creativities, freedoms, choice, rights...all allude to the feminine principle striving to be re-established.

Of Love and Marriages...(part 2)

Added to the first part of this post is 2 years of experience... of wisdom and age. The understandings have changed, so have the perspectives.

The realisation has dawned on me that there is a reason why "love" had no mention in the historical literature on marriage - it is because the two are mutually independent concepts, perhaps even contradictory!

Love, by definition is an emotion. Hence being irrational, spontaneous, not knowing bounds. The more the irrationality the greater is the depth and the meaningfulness of love.

Marriage, on the other hand, is an institution. Created for governance of society, just like any other institution - the government for instance. The scope of governance here may seem different at some levels: social behaviour, family life, sexuality. But there is no denial that these in turn, relate ultimately to law and order, the prevention of anarchy, the preservation of social stratifications (caste or religion through endogamy).

The creation of an institution is always strategic. It is rational, intelligent and is defined by its boundaries. We know what DOES NOT constitute a marriage as well as what DOES, and these boundaries are universal... as universal as the boundlessness of love.

The success of a marriage is therefore, based on the degrees of rationality and the strength of its boundaries. The stronger the fence, the better the marriage! The strategic base of the institution of forming the alliance, completely on pratical matters, is what makes it so feasible, so universal, and so durable. It is due to these reasons why it has not become extinct as a concept (keeping with Darwinian selection).

Human beings are rational and intelligent. We are predisposed to organising our lives,our societies. We like order, governance and systems. The institution of marriage embodies all these qualities. That is the appeal. That is the secret.

Love may become extinct, but not marriage. The latter makes sense... it is here to stay!

Spaces

This is about spaces - geographical, physical, social, psychological... In complex ways they are related, they are interdependent, mutually determinate. Most obviously, they have manifested similar characteristics - the duality of apparent availability and access, and the contradicting fact of underlying extinction and exclusion of these spaces. Each of these spaces are scarce nowadays, and getting increasingly so... yet there is the impression, or rather delusion, of more openness, more options, more freedom - to express, to luxuriate, to move, to be accepted, to think... Yet, these are actually the times that i feel uniformity and sameness get rewarded like they have never before. Everyone is expected to follow the same fashion trends - in clothes, in hairstyle, in accessories; appreciate the same things - same artists, same authors, same musicians; achieve the same things - material wealth, same educational degrees, same careers. It is always logic and rationality over emotions; evidence over instincts; rules over rights; the strong over the weak; and the masculine over the feminine.... These are choices, if we are all making the same choices, then we are also thinking the same thoughts. This only goes on to imply that we have lost our individualities and hence, our SPACES. Only if you subscribe, do you belong. And your relinquishment of your space to think, decide, live gets rewarded with this sense of belongingness. Since we have already let go of our spaces, there is no individual thought or emotion left. Without this, the belongingness even, is not an emotional one. With the lack of spaces and their short supply, we are only competing with each other (even, rather more so with the people we 'belong') - competing to look better, younger, more fashionable, competing for the same jobs, the scores, the universities and the finite wealth. In this ruthless competion with the ever decreasing spaces, we feel alone...lonely...scared... bereft. And its precisely these feelings that lead us to this urgent and growing need to belong, in more and more superficial ways, with each other. We all know each other's insecurities and fears (because we all fell the same way!), but we still see each other as threats, and we still mask our emotions - we donot have the space to express, no space to feel! For this would make us vulnerable, and there is no space for vulnerabilities! It is a sickening mix of all these realities, this vicious cycle, that makes us escape from freedom...!!

Of Love and Marriages...

One of the most significant developments in my life lately has been the numerous weddings of friends. In the last two years 9 of my friends and 6 of my colleagues got married. and I am expecting atleast 4 more weddings before the year ends (thats a conservative estimate based on the ones which are planned, then there are those spur-of-the-moment ones too!). I thought, therefore, that "weddings" would be a pertinent concept to write about... Lets go back to the origin of the word. The Anglo-Saxon word wedd referred to the grooms pledge to marry, but also to purchase money or its equivalent in horses, cattle, or other property that he paid to the bride's father. So a "wedding" was literally the purchase of a woman for breeding purposes, involving an element of risk. The first marriages were by capture. When a man saw a woman he desired, he took her by force. To kidnap a bride, a groom enlisted the aid of a warrior friend, his "best man". Capture marriages dominated the prehistoric world. However, marriage by purchase became the preferred tradition, and even when it wasn't an overt sale of the bride for cash, everyone understood that she was being bartered for land, holdings, political alliance, or social advancement. A girl was a useful pair of hands in the father's household, but she was invaluable to the groom's, where she could work equally hard and also bear offspring. Closer home, the Laws of Manu that prescribe social conduct for Hindus, describe eight different types of weddings - when a man adorns his daughter and gives her as 'gift' to a man that he has summoned; when the man adorns his daughter and gives her as a as a gift to a priest in the course of a sacrifice; giving the daughter away after receiving cattle from the groom in return; when a man takes a girl away because he wants her, and gives wealth to her and her family in return; when a man and a woman join in sexual union out of desire; when a man forcibly carries a girl from her home after killing, breaking ang wounding; when a man secretly has sex with a girl who is intoxicated, asleep or out of her mind. The expression "to tie the knot" dates back to the Romans, when the bride wore a girdle secured by a knot, which the groom then had the fun of untying. Rituals of binding have also been popular throughout the world. In ancient Carthage, the couple's thumbs were laced together with a strip of leather. In Hindu weddings, the end of the bride's saree is tied to the groom's stole. Besides knots, rings, or other forms of jewellery, headgear and vermillion all signify marriage and bind the bride to the groom (usually all these symbols are borne by the women).

This is of course, a completely historical-sociological description of the concept, bordering on a feministic interpretation. There are a multitude of connotations of this multifaceted concept, ranging from romantic (as in marrying as a result of falling in love, to spend the rest of their lives together, as a declaration of their love to the world, etc.), to socio-economic (organisation of society for optimal division of labour), to socio-political (marriage to perpetuate and maintain patriarchal societal structures, as well as caste, religion, class, etc.).

Do note that "love" has no mention in any of these weddings, either as a reason, or as signified by any of the symbols associated with the process. Do note also, that Manu accepts rape and abduction as marriage. I assume it is needless to point out the status and role of the woman/bride in this whole matter as has been prescribed by the various weddings, and therefore, various societies.

Despite this, (or perhaps because of this) weddings have started to symbolise and signify everything, except the union of the two people concerned (but it was never meant to anyway!!)The wedding, its rituals and the significance, the scale and the grandeur never fail to amaze me. From Mr. Mittal to the landless labourer, everyone would exceed what is 'affordable spending' on a wedding by atleast double! Status has started getting determined by the scale and grandiosity of a wedding, entire films get made on this concept, industries run on the business of weddings, and of course, how can I overlook the weddings that happen because of the wedding (weddings are a prime ocassion for all matrimonial purposes: with all the dolled up girls and the eligible bachelors, one is definite to strike some metal, if not gold!!). The wedding often far exceeds the marriage in significance and relevance, despite both being embedded in the same fabric, no matter whatever interpretation one chooses. The concept has definitely stopped being just a ritual to signify the commencement of an institution (that of marriage), and has become an organising principle - a superstructure, almost. The power and universality that it represents is probably only next to that of sex !! (and of course, the latter wins due to its sheer unfair advantage of the absence of all associated baggage, and its place in the esteemed list of 'basic needs'!).

Patterns and Predictability

Our lives are full of patterns and predictability. As much as we may complain about them - on the basis of their consequent monotony - its a fact that we seek them out, we crave for them, we create them when there are none... Human beings seek patterns and predicatability. In studying perception (as a part of psychology) one understands the importance of closure in a perceived figure vis-a-vis the background, even in learning and memory, it is by creating associations, mnemonics, conditioning and patterns that we learn and memorise - even completely unrelated concepts (for instance, food and the bell in Pavlov's dog!!) Coming to think of it, memories of our life's incidents are always in patterns, in relations and associations. A song playing at the roadside tea stall, or a particular smell can transport us to a romantic dinner date, or our high school farewell, or a friend's birthday party where we all got completely wasted!! Its however, the same pattern...and it brings about the same predictability... Its actually amazing how much we seek these patterns. People can listen to the same song repeatedly only to revisit those fond memories over and over again, or they wear the same perfume for years. I even know of people who wear the same colour (in different shades, of course!). These patterns then cease being merely associations for memories. They start defining our identity. Our habits, our jobs, our everyday routine are all examples of this. They define who we are. The comfort that one gets by knowing what to expect (predicatbility) in our lives is almost immeasurable. You know what to do every morning, you go to the same place to work everyday and meet the same people, you know your family/friends will be there when you need them...The importance of this predictability can only be realised when the pattern is broken. The trauma that one goes through following a broken relationship, a death, losing a job, an illness - are extreme cases when one mourns the absence of this stability and predictability in one's life...Some people can handle this instability better than others, but people generally go through the same sequence (or rather pattern) of emotions and feelings. Of course, the intensity of the instability, the dependency that was there on that pattern, and the length of time that predictability existed are all determinants of how much the change affects the person. The adage - "time heals" - supports this. The "healing properties" of time are nothing but due to the predictability that it creates after a certain duration. Its not that one forgets, or that the pain becomes less - its just that one gets used to it, one expects it to be there, one can predict it...and therefore, a new way of life gets created with new patterns and new predictabilities!

Love : An attempt at demystification

Love is perhaps the most mystified concept in this world. Children often believe in magic and miracles and when they grow up they naturally extend this mystique to love. Yet it is apparently also the most common concept. From literature to entertainment, from social institutions to evolution - its this one single concept thats overriding. To Plato, lovers are incomplete halves of a single puzzle, searching for each other in order to become one entity. By giving up their autonomy, they find their true selves. 3000 years later, Freud talks about the same phenomenon using words like sublimation and resistance. But why should the idea of oneness - thats the core of love - be so compelling? Love changes all the physics in the known universe of one's emotions and redraws what is real and what is possible. Perhaps that is where the source of this mysticism lies... It is this mysticism, however, that drives a rationalist to an attempt at theorization, demystification and deconstruction of the concept of love (is it blasphemy, well, maybe!!). What would a taxonomical analysis of this sacred concept look like? First, one admires. The essence of love is fantasy. We fall in love with gods and goddesses of our own devising. We never see them clearly, we never see the forces that drove us to them, but we are predisposed to love them! The next characteristic is, what can be called 'crystallization' - the tendency for someone in love to idealize the subject, imagining him or her to be finer and nobler than any other human being. It is a mental process that draws on everything that happens to form new proofs of the perfection of the loved one. Then one hopes that the feeling will be returned. The paralysing shyness one feels in the presence of the subject of love (in more romantic terms - the beloved!); how important it is to act naturally - but also how difficult; the way the subject's/beloved's kind words can render one speechless; how the alternating current of hope and despair can fry one's nerves; the way the most trivial gesture can devastate a lover one moment and cause bliss the next; how music can convey the wordless depths of love; love's power to whitewash the true nature of the 'beloved'; and the pitilessness of self-doubt and self consciousness that savage one's heart... When This hope and the earlier admiration combine, 'love' is born! After this doubt creeps in with dreadful misgiving, as the love demands proof after proof of affection. When doubt is overcome, the second crystallization occurs, with the mind imagining every act as a proof of love. At this stage the opposite of love is death. If the idealized person should leave the mournful lover assumes it was his/her fault, and that happiness is lost forever! There is no consolation. the mind can no longer attach the idea of pleasure to any pleasurable activity. Love here is the optical illusion which leads to the fatal pistol shot! Certainty, familiarity, complacency - they all lead to pleasant relationships of companionship and good will, but not to the feverish adventure of being in love!! Love is a solitary feeling which exists whether its returned or not, and not the emotional event that takes place between two people. The loves of two people in love with each are seldom the same. Perhaps this is where it draws its mystique from...and perhaps this is why even in an attemot to demystify it, the rationalist cannot help but acknowledge the magic...