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?