Sunday, August 10, 2008 Tupas: Startalk By Jeffrey M. Tupas My Turn
AYEL's shoutout, I felt, deserved an attention that, despite the possibility of the effort to be misconstrued as plainly attempting to grab attention -- which was secondary by the way -- I took the plunge.
He quoted a line from the filmized Neil Gaiman book Stardust: A philosopher once asked, "Are we human because we gaze at the stars, or do we gaze at them because we are human?" Pointless, really...
"Do the stars gaze back?" Now that's a question.
I knew he would reply. But was afraid that he would not. And when he did, it scared me that he would stop.
But nobody's stopping yet. I guess it's too early to stop as it would be too early to say that things are getting well.
Well, I'm hooked. And because I am an open book, read on...
ME: The stars? I guess they gaze back. They speak to us. Tell us things different to what they have been telling others.
These things that they tell us always depend on how we stare at them. You see, stars know what "two-way-street" is all about... Sure, this is romanticizing. I am romanticizing.
*Never mind though. wink...wink...
A: Definitely, you are romanticizing... Stars don't gaze back at us...They don't even twinkle... (or so we thought) sigh
M: But what if these stars are not really as withdrawn as you think they are?
What if you're just misreading them...that they actually detest being called and treated like "stars"? What if they're real?
*Just thinking. Btw, my name is jepoi.
A: What do your mean, they are real? Stars are undeniably real... They are in the sky... They are part of the galaxy... Why would they detest being called as stars? At least, they have a label... Do you detest being called human?
And I'm Ayel... I don’t know you actually... But then, I have nothing to lose if I'm gonna respond to your email... :-)
M: There are reasons why they are called stars. One maybe, for the elementariness of my grasp and understanding, because they are up there--so hard to reach. Promixity made them and probably, made us too. You see, whoever coined the word starstruck was brilliant but apparently was so drowned by the starness of stars.
We can be literal and that is fine. Which brings me to my proposal that we try to lower our gaze far from the skies. Looking around, we will certainly realize that unlike the real stars, mortals' own version of stars do not brighten mortals' own version of sky.
I hope that answers the issue on whether or not stars are real.
Now, about having labels and all that -- sure labels could mean a lot.
But labels are like boxes. They constrict us. Sometimes, people tend to focus their attention more on the box and the wrappings rather than the content. The fancier the box, they expect more of the item inside. What i am saying is that most of the times, boxes precede the item.
Yes, Ayel, both of us do not have anything to lose on this. wink... wink...
A: I'm impressed with your letter... Tinodo mo lahat and binuhos mo lahat ng powers mo to come up with much depth and analysis...
Well, I am actually in awe after reading your letter... I never thought you can be so analytical about the stars...
So let's talk about the moon? :-)
M: I don't actually mind talking about the moon, although I know that like the rain, the moon is also depressing.
But, really, I don't mind being depressed this time.
