American English

And one year of US taught me my common errors  and new words in English:

Can you suggest me something? (incorrect)

Can you suggest to me something? (correct)

Can you suggest something to me? (correct)

You like this shirt? Is it? (Incorrect)

You like this shirt? Don't you? (correct)

You like this shirt? Do you? (acceptable)

Let me wear my socks. (Incorrect)

Let me put on my socks (Correct)

Are you not coming?

what would it mean to say in both:

Yes, I am not coming.

No, I am not coming.

"Can you get me a glass of water without ice" (doesnt work here)

"Can you get me a glass of water with no ice." (More like it!)

I didn't get you = I did not understand you

is not same as "I did not get your words."

Correct expression: "Can you say that again."

New Phrases I learnt:

cute as a button

I am all wet

To go by the ear: take decision as per circumstances develop

Whatever Floats your boat – soothes your soul

Debilitating

Sassy: improperly forward or bold

To be perfectly ripened: fresh fruit is perfect when it is a little old. That is called ripe

Cool beans

I'm down for both:

Be there or be square: be honest or direct if you aren’t there

I’m golden

Changing Geographies

Change of geography is a difficult thing to handle. Imagine if you got up one morning and found yourself in a space where the walls of your room have changed directions, your bed has turned and you are no longer facing the window you slept against at night. Not only will it be completely disorienting, but the structuring of the house will no longer guide you in the same way...they no longer direct you like before.

I am saying the above in reference to the ongoing shuffle of my working place  at the Sterling Memorial library at Yale which is going a major renovation.  I had just gotten used to my work place after a semester of work which made my body mover and twist in regular ways. I had all my turns calculated, steps were measured and heights were defined. However, now I no longer engage with the space in the same way. By virtue of shift and change of the old working conditions, the space which one bends, moves or sits is absolutely different.

Similarly, I changed 3 houses in my first year. And every time it was different - the shapes, heights and smells of all these rooms were different. The seasons I occupied them in were different. The neighbourhoods and the views they framed were drastically different. The sounds that occurred while at home and the way the morning showed and woke me up were just not the same. The light and the people were different. Thus this space (New Haven) has never been settling for me. My research in domesticity underplayed a large role in this understanding.

The notion of 'unsettling' becomes starker when every action that your body gets accustomed to is challenged time and again. What they call it the "choreography" of built space...Re-imagine then, the initial scenario - where the geography of your house has changed. You realize that you no longer see the same view while reading on your desk, the light coming from a particular direction while you watch television has changed or the height of your wash basin had gone lower by two inches or the switchboard you blindedly used before entering the room has changed its wall. The way in which the house folded your body is no longer the same. Sometimes this can bring irritation, because the choreography of the house calls for a change in your physical actions.

If we were to extrapolate this learning to a larger level in architecture, the results are even more drastic. Churning landscapes into different territories altogether affect a large mass of people. New typologies of buildings change the settled character of built space, affecting masses of people together pushing them to a transformation. Transformations are always difficult because they ask you to reconsider old habits, old norms. However, being critical is only then a matter of closely looking at the nature of change, how would it affect you and what would it do to a probable future...

Anyway, I haven't developed this writing well, because originally I meant to describe geography as a physical setting of sorts. This physicality structures us as much as we design it. As Lefebvre calls it - we share a dialectic relationship.

Last night, I entered the apartment I stay in late. It was pitch dark, but i managed to make my way to the room because my steps were measured and I had tactile landmarks for myself. I turned left and right at the right place and took cues by feeling the objects in the dark before i finally gauged the switch of the lamp! It did not dash myself, hurt my body or bang against any wall. The geography of the house was now familiar to me, it has become a part of me...soon to change though.

But does this remind you of how Alibaba found his way to the treasure inspite of the fact that he was blindfolded for the first time when he was taken there?

Still Reading my blog?

Sometimes I wonder if the same old people still read my posts? Rather, I wonder if those people whom I would want to read my blog actually do read them?

We always write for someone, there is always someone that we address our writing to...This reader is not imaginary, is it? We definitely have a character in head whom we idealize and write for that person. Perhaps it may also not be so...but I constantly keep on confusing myself with whatever I say! So while one post is for someone, another can be for someone else - and thus there are overlaps, incongruencies, inconsistencies which are inevitable in the format of a blog readership.

In the mobilities of time, space and people, some posts catch attentions of people who really surprise you by a random comment...those are special moments and it's nice in the way they get preserved in the blog! and when you revisit them, they give you sweet pleasure!

So if you are an old reader and still reading this blog, I would love to have your comment here! That shall boost me to bring out more of what's there inside my head!

The last 100 words that go first

I need to submit my paper tomorrow. And I am struggling to write the last 100 words, which will be the first 100 when I submit my document. All thoughts there in the mind, I find it so hard to express them beautifully, sot hat not only they express my concern, but also make logical sense. While i construct sentences in my head, they get dismantled when I ask to myself: "so what"? It is extremely frustrating when you don't get the right words to explain the feeling you are going through, or rather, something that you have a hunch on, something that is really bothersome, but you still do not have the way to express it.

That is about writing - as difficult as designing. Sitting with a blank piece of paper or an untyped sheet, sentences come and go. Seemingly well designed sentences fall immediately, and sometimes, loose ideas become so strong. Larger questions that always remain at the background are that "who is the audience?", who is interested in your thesis, why should any one be interested in your thesis? How does it change anything? And this is exactly what has to come out in the first 100 words - the most impacting paragraph...something that shall arrest the mind of the reader, something that will make the thesis more concrete and valid...

"There is a common theme running through all your writings," my advisor says - and we know that. But it's just so beautiful when she talks about it rather than me speaking or writing it out. I think she is fabulous, in the way she gives a literary shape to my thoughts. Talking to Eeva, my advisor, always brings a smile on my face. It feels like she tells me: "see it was so easy!" But I guess advisors always make things sound fantastic, because they are much well read and much more prepared with their positions. We are still constructing our positions.

In the last meeting she told me regarding my paper: "But what is a thesis if it can not fail? You have to take that risk, and your struggle with your writing is worthwhile. Tell your story, you have to tell a story, be assertive in your voice. And I think you already have a voice, it just needs some...some...like 2 minute noodles..."

That was reassuring, but the fact remains that one has to write the story, and there are so many ways in which your story can be told. But people have limited time, so you have to convey the right idea in limited words! Ah! Graduate school - it's much tougher than it feels to be!

Enlightenment

Immanuel Kant submitted that "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inablitity to use one;s understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self imposed  when its cause lies not in the lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another."

Emmanuel Petit
From Log 27

Spring Chutney 2013

Poster Design: Anuj Daga
Logo formalization: Anuj Daga

The American 'Good' and 'Bad'

These days it has become so difficult to get an entry point into the numerous thoughts that run within my mind! Even for the current post, I am struggling to find ways of presenting the multiplicity of experiences that my mind is undergoing right now. Where on one hand I have the pressure of finishing my papers and course work, on the other hand I am pursuing some things that give me utmost satisfaction non-academically! I am truly living a liberal-arts environment - participating in music, films, discussion, debates, plays and what not! There is generally so much to document, and in addition, opinions constantly keep on forming, but I wait to finalize these in the head. I guess it's a phase when I am noticing and learning new things and it would be too early to harden my perspective about them.

Last two days I was at Boston for the 'Sa-re-ga-ma-pella' - South Asian A capella meet. We had four acapella teams from different universities who performed at the Boston University. I was along with my group Sur-et-Veritaal -Yale's only south asian acapella group! This gave me an opportunity to spend more time with the undergraduates at Yale. My interaction with the undergraduates at Yale has been varied. I taught a bunch of students at Yale last semester as a Teaching fellow; whereas over this semsester, I have been performing with my acapella group. Both these sets of people were different, or perhaps it was the relationship I shared with them that changed the dynamics of our conversations. I enjoy being with  my music group - they are fun to be with.

I have always been self critical, sometimes a bit too harsh upon myself. Spending the last two semesters at Yale, I have found people here to be extremely encouraging, supportive and furthering. Even when I would feel that my ideas are not up to the mark, they have said them to be rich. This goes with my professors, friends and my acapella group members too. 

Initially I was too new to the concept of A capella and would make plently of mistakes in understanding or coordinating music. Some days back, I was listening to the initial recording of our songs and they sounded awful. I remember how there was no criticism, or frustration expressed over things that didnot really work that time - in fact,  it was considered to be normal. There were times when I would go up to our music director Marios and ask the same thing multiple times, ask the silliest of the questions and the group put up with that. While the group thought I was really good, I constantly kept undermining myself. Eventually things have gotten much better - but there have been times when I have kept away from taking lead for songs. I was to sing the lead for one of the songs at the concert we performed at Boston yesterday. I kept making mistakes with this song (Chhaiya Chhaiya) since the original song was edited to suit the composition and I wasn't able to memorize it. In spite of constant mistakes, I was never criticized  by the group (at atleast it wasn't expressed) . They were extremely accommodating and kept positive mood! I wondered if I could ever be so patient with any one else working with me, especially until a few hours before the performance! 

We performed well...and I wasn't particularly tensed since I had made up my mind to enjoy whatever I did. However, the group's positive encouragement helped me curb my own self-criticality. 

I slowly started accepting that it's all about trying, practicing and giving time - not only to the self, but even to others. I guess this is what is the general culture / way in which things are taught here. Teachers appreciate even if a student brings one good point in comparison to nine other weak ones. The one good point is honed and taken to the next level. 

But here is what I have always wondered - what is it about not being critical of your own weak points? While it's my tendency to work and better my weak aspects, Americans tend to choose their best quality and make it even better. It is not within this culture to talk much about things that are not working out! In other words, they are progressive. For example, in my case, the group did not really focus on my mistakes but kept praising me for the quality of my voice. They would say that the group had really strong soloists, instead of the fact that the group needed way more work on presentation. 

This makes me think of an overall American culture as one which tries to cover up its non-working aspects through those that work for itself. They project their pretty points far too positively when framing a picture of themselves. I am not sure of my stand on this aspect since on one hand, being new to this place, I crave for such encouragement and adulation, but on the other hand I also would like to have some one be critical of my thoughts such that it makes me aware of things I haven't been thinking of or concentrating on before...

Well, that's a general observation, and it is definitely going to change, as soon as I see the results. Sometimes I also think that I have been too critical of myself for much long time to be able to even acknowledge my good qualities! So it's a nice moment to find a chance to appreciate myself. Perhaps, I also do not know how to acknowledge appreciation - I generally reflect it back as "Oh, I am not that great." Another reflex when some one appreciates you here is to give back that appreciation. I have found myself changing in that respect. Although I am not completely able to do away with my over-critcal nature, I keep this critical observation to myself as much as possible instead of throwing it off on others. But personally, it is hard for me to overly appreciate a minor good quality (and blow it out of proportion) overlooking that person's capacity to improve on other fronts. The primary reason I do not subscribe to that attitude is that it is to market-oriented and feels as if one is trying to sell oneself.

Guess I am again being critical. 

To end it and frame an example of what I am talking about: Although I do know that we performed really well at the SaReGaMaPella, I know that the acoustics and the mike arrangement at the show sucked and it was partially responsible for nor bringing out the beauty of our composition. However, no one speaks about this terrible arrangement - everyone only appreciates how well the soloists sang, etc. But I find it too hollow a comment because it is too political. It feels as if the other teams praise us since they want it back. It's not about competition that I write the above, but to figure out how the arrangement can be bettered, what kinds of spaces work for a-Capella performances? What must be the setting and how they must be conducted in order to experience them completely...

I couldn't talk about (for example) performances that I thought did not really work well, and how they could really be reconsidered - it all gets covered in the mushy-mushy goody-goody "oh-you-were-so-good" compliments! Sometimes you can make out they are not genuine. I just don't find it healthy! Another example is the pre-made card that has presented to the group at the end of the show - don't know how much the words in the note really mean:

But there are a million other things to record and I am not sure if I can write all of them here!

Madness & Sexuality

From the French Theory course again.

Reading Foucault, responding to "In terms of Foucault’s approach to his subject matter, where do you similarities and differences between The History of Madness and The History of Sexuality?"

As I posted in my last post, one of the most significant similarities that I find in Foucault's approach of subject matter in the History of Madness and History of sexuality is his decision to work on marginalized bodies. A historical analysis of how such categories came to be created in the time period when knowledge production was taking place is the prime area that Foucault investigates. 

Another similarity is also his seeming triggers for these studies: "why are certain acts not acceptable in the society?" This question applies to both. In a way, Foucault is challenging the accepted 'code of conduct' for the society. Through his works, he questions the control that is exerted by an invisible societal force over a body that tries to be independent - over a body that the society constantly wants to appropriate and subsume. It gives a sense that he is discomforted with the way in which 'cultured' societies exclude certain groups and the way in which power relations are created. 

Power always resolves itself into hierarchy, and hierarchy goes ahead to define roles for different bodies in the society. In some ways, we are almost born into a culture where things are pre-decided for us: ways in which we are expected to lead and live our lives. Foucault's histories challenges institutionalized culture through its own past. This is what I find interesting about his works.

History of Sexuality opens up a whole range of 'industry' associated with the 'functions of body' and in the modern world, it's representations. These include reproduction(maternity), prostitution / pimping (brothels), censorship, sex education, ethical behaviour - which he terms 'sexual practice'. It almost implies that the body is tool through which one negotiates life, and sex is the most obvious characteristic of this tool. Similarly, history of Madness too opened up the discussion of various modern institutions of prisons, clinics, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, etc. 

The next common thread is his keen observation of the everyday. What constitutes the abnormalities of everyday is the subject matter for Foucault. Sex and madness both are closely associated with bodily conduct - very strongly controlled by the society. Extreme forms of sexuality (homosexuality, transgender-ing, etc.) or behaviour (madness, psychological behaviours) are stigmatised and quarantined, denouncing bodies their mental freedom to exist in society. The disconnect with the social sphere is repressing, and the fear of such separation pushes for secrecy or hypocrisy.

Foucault targets such (unwanted?) masking of truthfulness of the body to be itself. 
On thinking about the differences, I can only think of how he plunged into both these subjects in history. For madness, he looks at representations of mad people in art and literature. For sexuality, he looks at personal accounts and several forms of discourses (censorship, church confessions, essays, etc.).

I like what you say about one similarity between History of Madness and History of Sexuality being their focus on marginalized bodies. I would like to extend your point, though, and say that for me the works have in common, more specifically, a fixation on the ways in which discourses and meanings are created, and the ways in which, recursively, those meanings effectively reimagine bodies in themselves in the modern age. My main point is that with the drastic increase in the production of discourse surrounding sex that was concurrent with the industrial revolution, what was once at least a semi-permeable barrier between body and text was effectively dissolved. In that both History of Madness and H of S study the disapearance of this fissure between knowledge and bodies, their methodologies are very similar, drawn from this conviction that they share. What I mean to say is that much like Barthes was a mythologist, Foucault is essentially a master of a kind of anti-discourse, someone who uses historical context, scientific data, etc to effectively shift or extend the bounds of our understanding. For example, Foucault uses history to explain that the repressive hypothesis is misunderstood, (as opposed to any kind of 'first philosophy') because his is a critical enterprise. Talking about bodies, talking about history, talking about even a landscape, all of it, now requires the attitude of literary criticism. 

My personal favorite facet of Foucault's argument was when he described sex as being at once garrelous and elusive, a Mad Hatter-type character. This is, also, reminiscent of his description of the modern artist's desire to reconstitute something as it is in "What is Enlightenment?." This loquacious silence of the world is essential to Foucault's understanding of what it means to be modern. A thing speaks volumes about itself, except perhaps exactly what we feel we know it to be.  

---

Samuel Sullivan:

Dear Anuj, 

I like what you say about one similarity between History of Madness and History of Sexuality being their focus on marginalized bodies. I would like to extend your point, though, and say that for me the works have in common, more specifically, a fixation on the ways in which discourses and meanings are created, and the ways in which, recursively, those meanings effectively reimagine bodies in themselves in the modern age. My main point is that with the drastic increase in the production of discourse surrounding sex that was concurrent with the industrial revolution, what was once at least a semi-permeable barrier between body and text was effectively dissolved. In that both History of Madness and H of S study the disapearance of this fissure between knowledge and bodies, their methodologies are very similar, drawn from this conviction that they share. What I mean to say is that much like Barthes was a mythologist, Foucault is essentially a master of a kind of anti-discourse, someone who uses historical context, scientific data, etc to effectively shift or extend the bounds of our understanding. For example, Foucault uses history to explain that the repressive hypothesis is misunderstood, (as opposed to any kind of 'first philosophy') because his is a critical enterprise. Talking about bodies, talking about history, talking about even a landscape, all of it, now requires the attitude of literary criticism. 

My personal favorite facet of Foucault's argument was when he described sex as being at once garrelous and elusive, a Mad Hatter-type character. This is, also, reminiscent of his description of the modern artist's desire to reconstitute something as it is in "What is Enlightenment?." This loquacious silence of the world is essential to Foucault's understanding of what it means to be modern. A thing speaks volumes about itself, except perhaps exactly what we feel we know it to be.  

Myth of the Car

Below is a text borrowed from 'forums' that we maintain for classes here. This one is for the "French Theory" course I took  in Fall 2012, led by Prof. Yue Zhuo. We read Mythologies and had to write on Mythologies around us. I chose to write on the myth of the car.

The discussion has trailing comments by the professor as well as student (s).

---
Anuj Daga:

In cities like Mumbai, where density of people is very high and everyone is struggling for space, owning a car goes much beyond owning a vehicle that takes you from point A to point B. A city stuck in traffic, a city with not enough road for the pedestrian and the public transport, a city with no space to park and petrol prices shooting up, it should almost discourage any person considering to buy a car. Still, we see that urban development plans for more layers of fly-overs above existing roads and developers sell apartments with ‘extra parking space’, banks extend loans for cars, and newer car companies promote their purchase through flexible installment plans. Between this tension of need and luxury, the car assumes a new meaning.

I have always wondered why do cars have four doors when buses have only two? Why do automobile companies introduce bigger and bigger cars (read private modes of transport) when public transport in the city carries almost twice the people than it can accommodate and the city roads have no space to take up more cars? Over some time now, I have realized that the car has become a symbol of luxury. With an individual door for everyone to access and constantly increasing leg space to stretch, the car wants to be your new home. Luxury dictates need. The size of the car is a scale of the potential of luxury that you can afford.

As a reaction to the fact that the car could only be afforded by those who have a lot of money, where the car had come to construct your identity as a ‘rich’ person, TATA motors in India introduced the NANO car in 2009 which was to be a vehicle that even the ordinary mass could afford – it was targeted at Rs. 1 lakh (US $ 1800). TATA claimed that it would make the car affordable for all. It was expected that there would be a huge demand for the car by the middle class whose spending potential was modest as compared to the upper class who owned cars. The Nano being offered at a modest price of Rs. 1 lakh took an appearance of the local street cab (the auto rickshaw) and was a much light-weight car. Its production base ran into some complications with acquisition of land for setting up the factory and hence it opened up the policy of ‘placing order’. Initially there was a lot of interest in purchasing the car, for those who genuinely wanted to invest in a vehicle for everyday purposes. But the sales of the Nano decreased dramatically after the first few production runs.

It appeared that Nano didnot fulfil the middle class aspiration of being identified as the owner of a car. In the neighbourhoods of a city like Mumbai, you are often known by the quality and bigness of the car you own. The car defines your identity and social standing. It talks about your image and becomes a signifier of your way of life. Further the number of cars talks about your economic status and fetches you respect. In such way, your car starts owning you more than you own it.

Owners of Nano are frowned upon. Those who feared that the Nano would dramatically increase the traffic on streets by its virtue of being so affordable to masses didnot anticipate that the story will be an anticlimax. People crave to have larger cars, at no cost Nano, and they label it as a light, unsafe and unaesthetic car although it fits the context of the city perfectly – it is small (thus uses less parking space), slow (uses less petrol and adjusts with the pace of the city) and perfect for singles driving on the road. But unfortunately, it doesnot fit in the conventional image of corporate businesses and those who attend meetings at five star hotels. The car had reduced to, or extended its existence to its image.

It is thus I find Barthes’ Mythologies apt to talk about the new value system the car has generated.

---
Yue Zhuo: 
The story of Nano is very telling, well recounted. Thanks. What's in confilct here is the value of utility and the value of "conspicuous consumption" (Veblen). Perfect transition to today's class.

--
Zhiyan Yang:

Thanks Anuj for the Nano example. A rough examination of this "myth of car" with Barthes's double-layer sign formula: car in the context of your example has been deprived of its original "meaning" as a vehicle, and new "signification" of wealth and social status is instilled in the "form." But who creates the myth this time? The middle-class (it is not quite the same with Barthes's French bourgeoisie, is it?)? or a collaboration of the car sellers and consumers? How does this myth spread? Some form of nation-wide power must have something to do with the creation of myth here.

Thanks again!

---
Anuj Daga:
It was interesting to think of your questions, some of which co incide with those that were raised in the class today. I have been thinking of these too. Especially on the idea of 'bourgeoiesie'. I always kept asking my friends what do they mean when they used this term. I always got new answers.

I read Marx, Raymond Williams (Keywords) and discussed with people, but never understood the context of France entirely. The French theory class has been helpful in understanding the context in which all these texts were written. So I am able to make some connections with those loose understandings.

One of the best ways I like to understand the bourgeoisie is that they are the asipring middle class. They are quite materialistic. Now these can again be complex phrases. I will try to elaborate. What I mean by aspiration is a desire to be like the upper class, so there is a form of imitation of something that you aspire to be or want. This imitation of the original want, falling in a changed economic bracket creates a new materiality. It is also when the original is studied or reproduced as an image.

I think the bourgeoisie consume this new materiality, this new image...
Another question raised in the seminar was "what is wrong with the bourgeoisie?" - If I may say, the removal of rationality from the use of an object, its reduction to an image and its altered value is something that creates discomfort within intellectuals towards the bourgeoisie. To Marx's 'use value' and 'exchange value', Baudrillard Jean added 'symbolic value' and 'sign value' as meta systems through which the materiality of the bourgeoisie is created. Perhaps the warped rationality through which the bourgeoisie consume is ideologically disturbing. Probably that may to some extent answer the question?

I had a lot of things in mind on the introduction of new appliances in the post war period in the French household. An intersting thing to know would be that a lot of technology geared towards defense of nations during the war created corollaries of inventions. Many of our household items were actually invented for wars. The washing machines, vacuum cleaners, etc. are actually parts of larger war weapons which find place as docile domestic equipments in our homes today! Historian Beatriz Colomina talking about this kind of new domesticity in  one of her publications.

However, perhaps, it may have also become important to dismantle the huge amount of intellectual and economic investment that went into making the mega-devices of war into everyday consumable products. The post war saw these machines in a completely new way  and appropriated technology for innovative purposes...

I also liked the question on 'who produces myth' and 'how does it spread?"- And it will need a fairly deeper reflection to answer that.

But today's discussion was very interesting. Thanks to all for these doubts and questions.

---
Yue Zhuo:
Good to read the exchange between you too. This is the type of "forums" I was hoping to see..

We talked a little about "leveling" yesterday in class.The Nano example was very much both an example of wanting to be like others ("aspring to be bourgeois" as Anuj puts it), and at the same time the desire of not wanting to be like others (if everyone can have this inexpensive car, then I want something better). It is both a compliance to social homogeneity and the desire for distinction).

Who is the creator of the "myth" is an interesting question. If I find time tomorrow, I will bring up the topic of reader/author.

Visual Conversations

And there are those moments when simultaneously, in a restaurant waiting for your friends to arrive you await the order you just placed to be brought. You look at people around sitting in the restaurant, noticing expressions, reading thoughts on their minds and occasionally, you hit sight with a person whom you would like to have shared a table with. Sometimes, as if things just have to happen, the line of sight that connects you to that person visually is absolutely clear. That person looks at you too (is it the clear line of visual axis at work?).

Both share glances. Initially hesitating. Then growing confident. Both try to overlook occasionally so that there are no misunderstandings. But the assumption of it being a misunderstanding itself is a misunderstanding. You distract yourself by talking to your table mates and wait to turn back your glance to that stranger across who you suspect is glancing back at you. Your postures are calculated consciously. You like the attention you receive. And while you smile at your table mates over a random conversation, you also actually want to impress that stranger across...

The person makes expressions as if thinking or day dreaming while turning to you. You wonder then, if he/she is looking deep into you or whether he/she is daydreaming in reality. You abolish the suspection...because you know it is not daydreaming. How is it confirmed? It is through the rhythmic sharing of glances. You know that one doesn't daydream in rhythms! Eventually you are transported mentally to his/her table. There are mini imaginations... "what if..." moments.

There are conversations that happen between both made up only through deep glances. You too feel that the smiles that person makes for his/her table mate are actually meant for you... You enjoy the parallel world you have created for yourself, which you assume is also sustained by this stranger. Do you wonder if this parallel world would ever or could ever collide with the present...or near future and with a secret desire of sharing this mental conversation with the person...? Do you wonder if the screen of gaze would rupture and bring you two in a space that you are no longer strangers?

You leave the space with these questions, and wonder if you would every confront this person - the real or the imaginary that you created in the head. However, I record this for if we ever meet in the future.