Offbeat
(Image source: flickr.com)
As a student of biology, I have always been wonder-struck
that even though the basic components of our DNA-adenine (A), thymine (T),
guanine (G) and cytosine (C) makes each of us, the permutations in the
arrangement of these basic building blocks with a strong influence of extent of
experiences bring about polymorphisms into our cognition, assessment, and
perception of any event. Amidst so much of individual polymorphisms in
intellectual acuity how is it that the age old adage: opposite poles attract
stands to test?
When like-minded has an affinity towards each other attributive
to traits common in both or contrasting traits become point of contentions
among incongruous what are the odds that the axiom is true?
Strangers when introduced either by a common acquaintance or
causes are at the best of their behaviors- measuring each other’s likes and
dislike with hawk eyes. As time ebbs by strangers begin to superficially
understand each other and move onto become acquaintances: indulging in blithe
jokes and banal talks. Events and circumstances may cajole acquaintances sometimes
to have mutual affection for each other and become friends. A friendship-that
may either be worth a million deaths or an illusion like the tinkle of a far-away
star in the ebony sky.
We, human beings take pride at our power of cognition and
deliberation of situations often claiming this attribute as the fine line of
divide between us and other animals. Irrespective of whether being an animal or
a human being there is one thing that is common- emotions. Our emotions range
from a content smile, fleeting trepidation, contagious laughter, excruciating
pain, angelic compassion, serpent-like-envy, ceaseless rage and disillusioned apathy.
It may propel us either to act cohesively for a cause, as a frenzy mob, and
enthusiastic spectators whether at soccer or even a war.
Even as friendships are forged what is the credibility of
the relationship? Isn't there going to be a difference in opinion on plausibly
every mundane and petty issue? Isn't it acceptable to agree to disagree and strive
to accept, assimilate, and appreciate the thought of the other? Or even if one
completely disagrees with an idea with the other isn't just good enough to
let the matter rest and move along? Or is it so pertinent and intricate that
one prefers to keep a baseline allusion of emotional expression, facial nuances
and body language to gauge the veracity and authenticity of the other
accurately? And if that isn't possible then how two unlike
individuals do gain equilibrium or never gain it all?
