The River

The river near-by, is less than a mile away. I used to go there in the very first semester that I came here after discovering it by accident, while out on a long and winding walk. I would have found it anyway. It is hard to miss. I've kept going back there - through magical times, good times and other times and it's seen me many-a-times and in many-a-mood, and over too many years. I think it's fair to say we have an understanding of sorts. It's there where I went again.

I've claimed a spot for myself.

Somewhat hidden, dipping down the banks into the edge of the river. Off from the main trail. I tramp over some soft sand, half-slide down the slope of the bank, and find a place to sit. It is quiet here. I settle my bag. There is an odd shaped mound of concrete. I don't know its purpose. It slopes and it too is broken, here and there, like so many other things including the bank. It is right next to the river bank of sand and pebbles and loose soil. The concrete slab disappears when there is a flood. I move away from it and go down closer to the river. I sit there on the sand. I look and I can hear. The breeze - it rustles through the trees. The sudden wind gusts through. The water rustles. It rustles over pebbles and the stones and the rocks. There are soft splashes as big fish jump out of the water and leap back in. The sunlight reflects off the surface of the ripples. The ripples are radiant. I close my eyes for a second. The sounds rush through. The murmur of the river. The murmur of the breeze playing lazily with the ripples, and the water lapping against the shore, against the bank of sand, and over the pebbles and the rocks. I smile and open my eyes.

The trees on the bank opposite cast their reflection on the ripples. I used to go to the other side at one point, especially when the river was very low. The bank on the other side merges with the river and one can sit very close to the waters and walk along the sandy and "shrub-y" stretch for a while. I was looking at those banks now from this side. It wasn't the same spot - not even close - but I was wondering what it was like on the other side. I had to chuckle at the thought. Were there people a bit like me with more courage and initiative who made boats or rafts to go exploring? I could only sit on this side, looking at the pulling currents and wonder what lay beyond that particular stretch of the forest on that side.

It's awfully peaceful here. One can sit and sit and smoke quietly, and drink some coffee. I know I could. I don't think any brilliant idea would come, no matter how long I sat - sad that - I'd probably grow woollier in the head and forget almost altogether how to communicate with people but I could sit and sit. Sometimes it's nice to think about somewhat more pleasant what-ifs while sitting near that bit of the river or not think at all - which is very difficult.

Maybe I am somewhat of a "regular" misfit - not good enough to be a rebel with a cause and please some non-normal folks and neither normal enough to fit in placidly and smilingly and normally. Maybe that's part the reason that I sometimes dream of living in the middle of some forest with a waterfall. I'm sometimes more wary of human beings than of wildlife of the raccoon and the wildcat sort. Bears, I'm not so sure about. I don't particularly want to meet them face-to-face and I hardly think I'd be living somewhere where there might be any mountain lions left. This is not the 'more pleasant' what-if though...

Thoughts come in and leave only to return when I'm looking and listening. The sun shifts. The ripples glow silver and gold. The reflections of the trees grow longer. In my head I can see masterpieces of paintings of golden green trees falling into the rippling river. A couple of songs play in my head...I do give one a try. But there's the gruff hiss followed by the flat note. I can hear it perfectly well in my head though. How can it not come out the way I hear it? What breaks down between a tune in the mind and it being released by the vocal chords, I wonder. I chuckle in the breeze and shake my head.

There's a silent long-legged graceful heron flying almost slow-motion over the river. A noisy and heavy duck on the other hand arrives not a second later, making that strange desolate gawking that those ungainly ducks do, swoops down and skims the surface of the river and starts 'sailing' along and bobbing up and down at top speed - still gawking away and rather frantically. Another heron and another duck join the graceful and the rather frantic. Some favourite dreams have been swirling around in the air, and for the time that I've been sitting there...

Now it's time to go.

I look down at the waves lapping the shoreline. The shoreline is deceptively safe. The slippery shore, however, takes no weight whatsoever. The waves are always a little cheeky just when I'm leaving. They sort of draw one in and before one knows it - one is splashing in the river, and trying to drag oneself up a slippery and slipping muddy slosh. I stay away this time wagging my finger while the cheerful innocuous little waves slosh teasingly near the banks, saying "Oh, wet your feet. Oh, wet your feet. Just wet your feet. You know you want to do it." I wag my finger again, saying "Oh, no. You got the better of me the other time. I know better now." "But you liked it. You liked it. It was exciting." So it was. I couldn't argue against that. "Yes, that it was but I don't want to slip all in again. And I nearly didn't get out." "Oh we'd spit you out. What would we do with you? Wet your feet. Wet your feet. You're wriggling your toes. You're wriggling your toes!" "Bye". I holler. "Cowardly custard." Say the waves. "I'll be back again." The waves have gone silent. "I'll be back again." I say a little softly this time, crouching near the shore-line, keeping a safe-distance... "Gmmfh." That's all I get in response. "Well I'll be back all the same!" So saying I let my fingers skim the waves, turn around and start climbing the river bank.

I walk back. I come back. I don't know what good the river walks/'sits' do for me. I have absolutely no idea. I don't see what would have changed in anyone's life if I were unable to go and sit beside and walk next to the river. I don't know what changes in my life with the sittings. I miss the river. I go to the river. The river calls to me. I go to the river. And I stay away sometimes till I run all the way to it. That's all I know.

P.S On some days the river doesn't want me near it. Some days ago, I went down to my spot. The river was heavy, sluggish, slow, stagnant, smelly, and scowling, and it shooed me away. There were hundreds of little flies/mosquitoes and I couldn't sit for more than ten seconds. I'm glad though in a way. That means, on other days the river does want my company, which is gratifying to know...

9/11/2010

On "Inception"

I've been itching to write about a movie I watched yesterday in a movie theatre after a very long time. I can't write reviews - and never having written a movie review - so I'll just write a bit about the movie without giving 'anything' away (now that can't be done so that's a lie). And here's a solemn warning: my friends in school and a couple of my cousins were always wary whenever I said that about a movie or a book that I'd greatly enjoyed. In my enthusiasm - I would break my word. I would tell them all about it and finish it off with: 'err..well, I guess you don't need to read that anymore...it's much better though than what I narrated.' This is a habit that I have not gotten out of. I did that a week ago with the film 'About Jane' (and I didn't even enjoy it 'greatly').

The film was Inception (but of course). I didn't know anything about it not having watched any trailers nor having read a word about it. A couple of friends urged Guha and me to come for the show, and so mid-week though it was - we met and watched it. I haven't much cared for the previous Christopher Nolan films. (I did know it was a Christopher Nolan film because my friend told me). I have watched The Following, Memento, and The Dark Knight. I have to admit that I liked that last movie for about two weeks and then 'saw' through it. (I watched it with jaws gaping and then found it ridiculous when I thought about it two weeks later). In fact this happens to me every now and then with movies and sometimes with books, which is why I don't like talking about them unless some time has passed. Memento had one fatal flaw in it which I wish I had jotted down, The Following I barely remember and I remember not thinking too much of it when I watched it, although I did like ...the movie with the magicians (not The Illusionist but the other really good one).

The movie is worth a watch. Not because of the fight sequences and the special effects and not even because of the 'central' plot of getting one man (played by an actor I admire - Cillian Murphy) to break up his father's empire but because it travels through dreams and 'shared-dream-space' and explores the idea of being able to create and control one's dreams, of people sharing and controlling dreams together and of traveling through multiple dreams in layers (the idea of a dream within a dream within a dream...), and of influencing others through dreams. There is one innocuous scene in the movie where di Caprio's character and the diminutive architect roams around in a 'dream sequence', and there's something unnerving about the scene because it comes across as being very real - not the physical bits - but the other part with the people.

Makes one wonder about real life, it does, and about daydreams. Do we "live" them somewhere when we daydream or are they just bits remembered/bits missed or do we "dream" them because they are "happening" somewhere? Do we "choose" the people that we meet in life? Do we decide that we will meet? Do some people barge in without the permission of others? Do some people on seeing a stranger simply remember all of a sudden 'oh, I know that person. Need to go and talk with so-and-so.' Is it because we already know some strangers that we think they are familiar while passing them on the road and exchanging, on cue, a sudden and rather embarrassed smile? Those "dreams" unfolding somewhere - are those that fill us with sudden and unbearable and sometimes lasting longing and yearning? (I have to improvise since my regular dreams are as mundane as my regular life and terribly uninteresting unless they're annoying or frustrating, and I have never quite gotten the hang of "lucid dreaming" - which Nolan was/is capable of - so there's nothing in it for me to ponder over my non-volitional dreams).

To return to the movie: there is the neat bit of 'extracting' an idea/information from another while in a dream but there is the even more intriguing bit of planting an idea into another's mind so that the unsuspecting person wakes up from the dream thinking that it's his own, and also acts upon the idea. Thankfully enough (for me) this was more about planting an idea that wasn't a demonic idea or a purely evil one (although there is one instance of 'planting' an idea which doesn't have a happy conclusion at all), for one of the ideas that Cillian Murphy's character walks away with was, most likely, far more precious to him than the purported idea (which was somewhat weak as the central plot around which the movie revolves but strong in its execution) that was planted into his head. And as a viewer, one can run with that idea somewhat further...was it actually his 'old man' who from the other side 'implants' this idea into the 'heist' organizer's head?....

The film is made along the lines of a 'heist' movie (so I later learnt) but it's much more than that. And for me there was some satisfaction in that the end wasn't left completely unfinished and 'unresolved'. The ending is left somewhat loose but not so loose that one wonders which side is up. There was some resolution and it depends on the viewer which way s/he leans. Some uncertainty is fine - but the Memento like non-resolution just leaves me feeling unfulfilled, and the unresolved circular ending from 12 Monkeys leaves me feeling distressed.

The film reminded me of The Matrix, and like a good sci-fi gets one to question reality itself. It's not particularly bizarre to walk out of the theatre feeling somewhat discombobulated because the film jolts one into thinking of the question that one has been trying to sit on: 'what really is reality'?This dominant theme is there (whether the director intended it or not). Is life but a dream? How does one wake up? Can one wake up? What is the 'kick' that wakes one up in real life? Could it be a lasting kick? And the all too delicious question: what would waking up mean?...and to run along with the idea "implanted" by Nolan - has one received one lasting kick, at least, if a kick can also symbolise 'remembering'/not forgetting?

That theme of the film is wrapped up in the 'cultural' elements of the times. The Matrix was made in the middle of the computer super-world with computer viruses and 'codes' and the theme of 'how far the rabbit hole goes', and the questions regarding reality and 'the illusion' were grounded against the backdrop of computers (replacing the machines of earlier sci-fi stories). The illusion was broken only with the courage to see the truth. There was also the oracle and the notion of 'destiny' and the will to act on what one believed in even though one did not believe that one was 'The One'. (Only the first one from The Matrix trilogy is worth talking about...) Inception, being a film of the 21st century is grounded against the backdrop of a corporate 'empire' that needs to be dismantled (appropriate one may say. This part was somewhat airy-fairy...but that is not too terribly bothersome given the other themes) and it's against this bit that those questions regarding reality and layered dreams (illusion?) are brought in. And films of this sort make me wonder: will one wake up? Is one awake? Are we awake? How many dream layers need to be peeled off?....and how long will it take?

The cast was interesting. There wasn't much acting required from the cast - I don't think - although most of them 'looked' (very) good and 'fit' their roles. I started liking de Caprio (for his acting ability) after watching The Basketball Diaries, and he isn't too bad in his role (even with his extra chin that's come from God-knows-where and his voice which sounds somewhat rusty, which would have been fine, but also a couple of notches too high). Ken Watnabe (who reminds me of Chow Yun Fat) fit his role to perfection, and had a couple of amusing liners (although not many people let out a chuckle because his accent and his inflection need some getting used to). I did grin in delight and let out a happy 'Oh' when I saw Cillian Murphy in the role of Fischer. I was also pleased to see the little boy from 'Third Rock from the Sun' (a TV series I used to watch every now and again while in India), who played the part of Arthur. He's grown up very well (although he still looks like he's stuck in a particular age). Then there was the amusing 'Forger' and of course Michael Caine who plays the part of the understanding father-in-law (de Caprio's). There is one amusing and appropriate line in Ebert's review regarding Michael Caine (normally I don't care too much for Ebert's reviews to be honest, but this liner about Michael Caine got me chuckling). The two women (one looks like a tiny slip of an animated school-girl actually; and the other looks very beautiful, I would think, and does have a major role but she somehow didn't come across as being very real...) I didn't recognise.

I will say that some other American actor of Indian origin (I believe is the correct way of putting things in) may have been taken for the role played by Dileep Rao (and notice he does not appear in the 'cast' pictures - sadly enough) just as the pretty woman may have been replaced by some/anybody else.

If I sound vague about the special effects - it's because I don't know too much about such things. I either like them or think they're over done or badly done. The special effects are all right here, and some are bizarre (but interesting, for instance -a city folding over, a city crumbling against the sea, time slowing down, the Escherian bits with a 'paradox') in their execution and I did gape. They were well-done and were not misplaced. The time-line/dream/reality bits are messed around with furiously but always kept 'clear' (so you do know where you are at some point and at other points you simply have to keep running around with the members to know where you are) and there were indeed more than a couple of places/times where/when I was hanging from the edge of my seat - wondering even before they had traveled through a single dream layer how they would or whether all of them would ever get back to the 'real' world or whether one or more would be trapped in limbo. And that's one thing about the cast....one gets fond of all of them - so one wishes for the whole lot to "get back" to planet Earth.

Where a couple of them end up - as I said - is left to the viewer to an extent. For me, insofar as the film was concerned, there was a certain bit of peaceful resolution and I came out of the theatre blinking rapidly and staring at the milling crowds, feeling disoriented, and quite 'unresolved'.

P.S: And sure enough I've given away every bit of the movie worth giving away!

I've changed my my mind about di Caprio. He was quite, quite bad in this movie but that didn't make a difference.

I still like the movie when it crosses my mind, in brief flashes, as it does. It reminded me too of an interesting book I happened to read a year ago. The title was 'The Years of Rice and Salt' by Kim Stanley Robinson. It wasn't about dreams but it was an (alternative) historical fantasy with reincarnation and the bardos and it captured the intuitively appealing idea of human beings belonging to a group of connected kin-folk who keep meeting over and over again across life-times....towards the end of the book and in some of the parts it got a little tiring as far as I remember but I found it an interesting and unusual read on the whole.

And what is it measuring?

Here are the results of the Greendex for 2010 on the National Geographic website. The first time I saw them I was surprised but in a suspicious sort of way - sadly enough. India at the top of the list in 'environmentally friendly behaviour (and consumption patterns)' in a 17 country survey? I would like to see India at the top of the list of some survey which isn't looking at population explosion or the highest incidence of some deadly disease but the idea that Indians, by and large, are engaging in behaviour that is environmentally sustainable seemed to be a little improbable. A look at the details of the study reveals some basic problems in the study design. It embarrasses me to point this out because this study has been conducted by a global organization alongwith highly trained specialists from the National Geographic.

The detailed report from the Greendex 2009 survey states that it is a 'comprehensive measure of consumer behaviour in 65 areas'. The major areas that the survey covers are questions on/related to housing, transport, food, goods (everyday items and big items). I'll not go into the details of every category. The report mentions that through 2008-2009-2010, rising costs were reported as one of the reasons that individuals engaged in environmentally friendly behaviour. But over and above that - the report states and repeatedly states that rising costs alone were not the only factor. People engaged in the behaviour they did because they felt it would be less harmful to the environment.

The 2009 study report states (as does the 2010 overview) that consumption is measured by the Greendex in terms of 'choices that consumers actively make' and 'choices that are controlled more by circumstances'. Even this distinction poses to be a problem. Choices actively made include: 'repairing rather than replacing items, using cold water to wash laundry, choosing green products rather than environmentally unfriendly ones'. Choices controlled by circumstances include: 'climate [consumers] live in, availability of green products, and public transport.'

To take some specific examples:

Repairing items: in the United States as far as I have seen repairing is not feasible. One, most of the times I can't even find a repair-shop or an individual who does repair-work (unless it's on a car) and two, more often than not it is cheaper to buy a new product than to fix what is broken (I won't go into the details of this). So 'repairing' is not really a choice that a 'consumer' can actively make.

Then take washing laundry with hot/cold water: I'm not sure who the respondents were in India - but it's a rare thing, even now, that houses have running hot water (I'm not sure which houses have running hot and cold water), and somehow I think the idea of filling buckets and buckets of hot water to do regular laundry (unless it's a bucket of whites or clothes that need to be germ-free) will most likely make people raise their eyebrows. It's not even a matter of choice (even if/when the possibility does exist) because the choice itself doesn't make sense.

Take transport, and in no distinct order: One is the matter of availability. Two is the desire. Three is the convenience(in terms of time)/costs. Fourth is the idea that using my own car and using bigger cars and 'better' cars and newer models means a perky feather in my cap. So is this a matter of choice or a matter of favourable/non-favourable circumstances? Does it not go back to the issue of what is being valued and by whom? And these issues exist just as much in India as they do in the United States although the problems are indeed of completely different levels. Whatever the 'choices' are or whatever the circumstances are - it's certainly not just a matter of the distance.

And then take all those aspects, such as, running hot water, heat appliances, and constant air conditioning? How does it make sense 'measuring' these in India? (Or in Brazil for that matter?)

Using personal lawn mowers? And other small engines? Indians don't use lawn mowers and what small engines are they talking about?

And finally to take one last item: 'choosing' to live close to places where one needs to travel? People, in India, live where they do/where they can and go to work....to specifically live in a place to minimise one's impact on the environment? The problem with the question is not that it measures/does not measure environmentally friendly behaviour - it indeed may do so in a country like the United States (where some aspect of choice does enter the action depending upon one's profession and class) - but raising this question, as far as I can see, does not make any sense in a country like India.

In fact the basic problem with the study (apart from the sampling issues) is stated in the study design itself. 'No allowances are made for consumer behavior that is determined by geography, climatic conditions where respondents live, culture, religion, or the relative availability of sustainable products. The Greendex is intended as an overall indicator of one's environmental footprint.' (And if this is the case what do they mean when they say earlier on that they measured consumption in terms of choices that are controlled by circumstances?)

And if none of those above-mentioned factors are going to be taken into consideration - then how can they say that the study is measuring 'environmentally friendly behaviour'? In order to measure environmentally friendly behaviour, a study would have to be designed keeping in mind the culture and the region and also, like it or not, the levels of economic development and poverty and also distinguish between the sort of behaviour that can be practiced/is practiced because of climate/availability of certain goods/services and because of an element of real choice. Now if people have no choice but to engage in behaviour that is less harmful to the environment there is no problem with that - I am all for it as long as it's wisely thought out - but there is a problem when one obtains the figures one does simply because of the levels of poverty in a country or because the questions do not measure what it claims to be measuring, and because of the problems (related to the environment - for instance - littering, waste disposal, terrible pressure on land with the ever increasing population and no strict means of legalizing birth control, over-congestion in cities, the problems of increasing gaps between classes just to mention a handful of factors that do not appear on the list) in one country that are of a very different nature from the problems of a wealthy first world nation. And secondly, and more importantly, my suspicion lies in that the high figures for India (and for two years running) in 'environmentally friendly behaviour' is on the whole not because (the 1000) Indians (interviewed) were/are particularly environmentally conscious but more likely because they are aspiring for the big car, the big house and the running hot and cold water. It's just that they haven't 'gotten' there yet.

Now if the study were measuring one's environmental footprint - that is the impact an individual has on the environment in terms energy use, consumption of different types including food, travel, housing, and also the amount of garbage produced by an individual - it would then have made sense to be asking the questions that the survey asked. The page which gives an introduction to the study does mention that the 'Greendex is intended as an overall indicator of one's environmental footprint.' And that is the truth. That is what it is measuring. And if one looks at the mini questionnaire - here - and if one reads the basic details of the study - one realises why the study lacks validity insofar as the study claims to be measuring 'environmentally friendly behaviour' of consumers. Also, by interviewing 1000 people from each of the 17 countries (no matter the sampling method, and it seems that the survey was conducted on-line), I cannot see how the study can be taken seriously.

And take the issue of 'environmental footprints'. That the 'ecological/environmental footprint' will be 'larger' in terms of resource use, energy consumption, and general consumption in more developed countries - and especially in countries that were driven by large appetites for consumption is not something that is unknown. It's been much talked about since the 1970s, at least (if not earlier), alongwith the problem of the bursting population of Third World and developing countries - and even now the two groups that argued about the two perspectives seem to be at loggerheads for the most part.... The Greendex indeed does courteously point out right at the onset that the study 'reminds us' that people (who are renamed 'consumers') in 'wealthy' countries have a larger impact on the environment. Do we need more reminding though?

And the point remains. If the study is measuring environmental footprints - that is what it should say that it is doing - and that is all that it should say that it is doing. What it is not measuring is environmentally friendly behaviour.

The 2009 report concludes on the upbeat note: 'The message to those that supply the products and services that [consumers] consume, and to those that make the rules about how they behave, is a clear one: Make the right thing, provide the right opportunities, and consumers will do the right thing.'

Nothing that I read from the Report leads me to believe the same. I don't understand how the results of the report lead to this conclusion. And what does 'right opportunities' mean? What does the 'right thing' mean? Do more things have to be made?

The 2009 report, which is available here is 14 pages long. The 2010 report, which I wasn't able to open until now, is 230 pages long (although it's been formatted into slides). For the most part, I can't see any changes between the basic study design.

However, there are a couple of interesting results in the 2010 report: a whopping 140 Indians from the 1000 Indians interviewed said that the environment was the most serious national issue; 370 Chinese felt the same way whereas not a single American believed that the environment was the most serious concern. For most of the 'global' concerns (economy, cost of energy/fuel, air and water pollution, global warming, loss of species/habitat, war/terrorism, spread of infectious diseases) close to 500 of Indians interviewed seemed to be 'very' concerned (measured on a 5-point Likert scale) about all of the global issues (apart from the spread of infectious diseases) and about 200 Americans seem to be 'very' concerned....unless the matter was regarding the economy(and Americans should be concerned about this) or rising costs of energy and fuel or terrorism. There one notes that 740, 470 and some 360 Americans are 'very' concerned about these matters. I don't know whether it's just me but terrorism in the list seems to be a very odd choice. And if one looks at the Indian response rate for all these items close to 50 % of Indians think all of the specific issues are of grave concern. I don't know whether the concern itself is being taken as signs of 'environmentally conscious/friendly behaviour'. And that number of 1000 individuals from each country...that remains quite distressing.

According to the report - Americans seem to be at the bottom of the list and yes, the Indians are at the top (now I can't say I'm too terribly surprised about the Americans being at the bottom but it's the Indians being at the top of this bizarre survey that is unsettling) of whatever it is that this grand survey is measuring. I somehow think that the specialists designing and chalking up the survey were going along with the idea of sustainable behaviour and resource use as measured and as relevant within the American context with less of an eye to the facts that plague a nation like India. When one considers the fact that just the rising middle-class in India accounts for almost the whole population of the United States, and that our 1.3 billion is living on land that is approximately 1/3rd the size of the United States - one has something to think about....

Note: There are lots of interesting articles and stuff though on the website for sure.....

"Do re mi" with a difference...

I received a link today. It's lovely to see that things of this sort happen, and at a railway station no less. Do visit the link - if you haven't watched the video already - the video really does say it all.

...I guess it's impossible to ignore some 200 people who take it into their heads to make life livelier....

Laughter...grace

It suddenly struck me why a good laugh is so important to me. I had suspected the reasons for sure but this is another level of knowing.

Laughing - a good bout of laughter - lets me hope. It clears out the dank mushroom clouds of ennui, listlessness and restiveness. It strikes out at the oppressive claws of fear. It clears out, for some glorious moments, the claustrophobic bouts of despair, and infuses me with an absolute laughing and buoyant love. It revives flailing hope. Laughter revives my spirit. It nourishes my soul. It's a feeling of grace. A short and sudden laugh because of an old or young friend and when least expected - is something that cleanses my soul. Those seconds - and those crucial seconds - strip off the veil and I can live in those moments with nothing else mattering. The meaning is all there - contained in that lived moment. Music, it is.

How do some people do this? By a word, a gesture, a couple of statements, a look, a glance, a story, a seemingly solemn comment...by their presence? I don't know but I am utterly grateful that there are in this world those who can make me laugh even when I experience despair. To make another laugh by something said - an anecdote, a funny narration, a deft turn-of-phrase, a witticism, a whimsical comment - is an incomparable gift.

...Or to make another feel happy for some glorious moments by one's sheer being. To make one feel that all the worries and the nigglers and the fears - for now - are unreal and don't matter. To make one feel that what matters is that inexplicable yet divine feeling of bliss, a wholeness, which is the only anchor, and the only thing that matters and is real. It feels absurd that such a state as this that I describe can be - but I have felt it myself. I know it is real. The state exists. The universe makes sense in those moments, like no other. It is a pause in the cycle of time or maybe it is a moment of timelessness. It is like music. This laughter. This smile. Those moments. They touch the soul.

Laughter - the grace of giving and receiving laughter, joyous and pure - is, I'm beginning to think, like the 'quality of mercy' as Shakespeare had so fittingly put it in.....

I'd like nothing better than to be able to make some real being smile or laugh for real...and have them feel that same unfettered bliss that I have experienced. I'll say an 'Amen' to that.