There was once a time when I was considered of having a future as a writer and I thought I did. I once wrote pieces, abstract literary or straight-to-the-point scientific dissertations, and it always gave me a sense of being able to do something better than my colleagues 5 to 6 years back.
But then came the time when I was pidgeon-holed into a paradigm of the computer science writing. Coded. Structured. Sometimes even object-oriented. Limiting my focus to a set of defined rules and parameters. Understanding the reasons behind reuseability and applying it to writing outside of computer science domain. This may be what defines a computer science or information technology writer should be but does not quantify to what I, personally, want to share.
Back then, I wrote as soon as inspiration hits. I had a pen and notebook with me at all times. The play of words, the rhymes, the tone and pacing of every word was a tree swaying and dancing with the wind. A play of the night's orchestra or so I thought. I entered into a science school and everything became came with geometry's "do not assume" rule. Postulates and theorems were there when there is a need for computing abstract objects such as squares and angles, which by the way, are words that are not real. That is, of course, if we abide by Aristotle's definition on what is real. His approach preceded the now well known Scientific Methods. I goes something but not exactly like this: "Until I can see, smell, touch, hear, or taste it, an object is considered unreal." We can not see, smell, touch, hear or taste a square or an angle. Definitions can be flawed most of the time and that is why there is the arts to make sense of the flawedness of science.
But to strike the balance between the scientific mind and the arts is not simple. It takes a genius, a good number are people I know from UP, to bring these supposedly opposing views of the world together. I, unfortunately, am not one of those geniuses. Swing one way but can never ride sideways.
I wrote on what I feel of what is reality, I write now on how I perceive reality. It might be the start of my cynicism and maybe the sloping decline of the once idealistic me.
Today, I am an it professional. I best understand structures and rules, designs and patterns. This is the world I currently live in. I'll need to find the abstractness in this to find my old self again. This is on of my facets to try and redeem that old me again.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"Definitions can be flawed most of the time and that is why there is the arts to make sense of the flawedness of science."
ah, the balance between art and science. when i entered high school, it was the artistic co- and extra-curriculars i craved the most. :)
i really don't like the either-or paradigm - it's a fallacy, even - and right now i'm content knowing that it's been a goal of mine to keep those two facets balanced.
writer ka nga. :)
Post a Comment