I have always been fascinated by this particular TV series from the day I've started watching it. It has always startled me with this connection I had for it. And as I've started watching it again today and figured out what's been going on my mind at that time.
The prison break as a TV series concentrates on Michael Schofield, a desperate guy trying to break his brother out from a high security prison called Riverfox because he thinks that his brother was framed. It of course has a lot of dramatic effects and anticipation involved in getting the spectators to watch the episodes continuously. A lot of action is going on as well and above all, I thought his strategic planning was what attracted me the most. He has the map of the whole prison tattooed into his body and has planned everything in advance. He has done the background studies of the respective personnel and found out their weaknesses. These weaknesses are exploited in order to get exactly what he wants from inside the prison itself.
As much as these facts and the plot made me interested in the TV series, there has always been something subtle working on. I think I saw the prison as one's mind. The prison has good guys and bad guys inside, well to start with, you don't go to the prison if your a good guy, but keeping the datum out of the normal societal level and moving into the prison system, we can readily define good guys as well as bad guys inside. This black and white differentiation makes one to think about their mind as a prison and the feelings inside as prisoners trying to burst out. Another way to see it is that, the mind bottles up all kinds of feelings and keep a tight control on them just as the guards do to prison inmates. But somehow or other, a notorious prisoner always gets past the guard and bust out of the prison by some means. Is this not the case with the flow of thoughts too? Some way or other, if a feeling is too determined not to give up, it always bursts out from the mind. It may make a difference, it may even screw things up, or sometimes mend things, but somehow a prison break happens. And the irony of this is that, these kind of prison breaks happen all the time, sometimes even without us knowing that such thing happened. It is actually the beauty of the flow of thought, you never know when something will burst out, even you exercise the tightest control over it.
Sway is a song sung by the Perishers, first heard it in One Tree Hill and recently reminded by a good friend of mine. When I got to think about it, this was what I came into my mind about the song.
I talk to you as to a friend
I hope that’s what you’ve
come to be
It feels as though we’ve
made amends
Like we found a way
eventually
It was you who picked
the pieces up
When I was a broken soul
And then glued me
back together
Returned to me what
others stole
I don’t wanna hurt you
I don’t wanna make you sway
Like I know I’ve done before
I will not do it anymore
I've always been a dreamer
I've had my head among
the clouds
Now that I’m coming down
Won’t you be my solid ground?
I look at you and see a friend
I hope that’s what you wanna be
Are we back now where
it all began?
Have you finally forgiven me?
You gathered my dreams in
When they all blew away
And then tricked them
back into me
You saved me I was
almost dead
I don’t wanna hurt you
I don’t wanna make you sway
Like I know I’ve done before
I will not do it anymore
I've always been a dreamer
I've had my head among
the clouds
Now that I’m coming down
Won’t you be my solid ground?
I don’t wanna hurt you
Like I know I’ve done before
I will not do it anymore...
I don’t wanna hurt you
I don’t wanna make you sway
Like I know I’ve done before
I will not do it anymore
I've always been a dreamer
I've had my head among
the clouds
Now that I’m coming down
Won’t you be my solid ground?
As far as I can make out, this seems to be a song sung by a lover to his/her ex possibly in the context of reuniting with the ex again. But possibly it might be a context where a one sided love exists while the other doesn't exactly feel the same way towards the other.
The singer is pretty determined not to hurt the other again. It seems that the singer has gone through a lot and has lost a lot as well as had her heartbroken. The words
It was you who picked
the pieces up
When I was a broken soul
And then glued me
back together
Returned to me what
others stole
emphasizes how much it meant to the singer. The singers life has been in a rampage when the subject of the song has re-entered the arena and backed her up. Perhaps this is a post scenario of a triangular love story where the singer was loved by two and the choice singer made turned out to be a bad one and the other guy has been there for the singer to lend his shoulder when needed. The singer might have lead him to some extent it seems because she specifically says that she doesn't want to make him sway like before, which evidently means she has done it priorly. By which means, is not specified, but that seems to be the case.
Now the subject of the song is there for her, but the singer isn't sure about her decisions anymore. She is afraid to take the risk and move onwards with life and she doesn't seem to be feeling sure about herself either. Thus she emphasizes that she doesn't want to hurt the subject like she has done before, and the best way to do that is to become friends, where it all started. The swaying is synonymous to her state of mind which changes from giving her heart to the subject to been just friends.
She has figured that she was confused about the whole thing in the latter stage of the drama and is determined to clear the clouds away. To do that she needs the subject to hold her tight and be there for her until she is on her nerves again. All these things she expect from the subject of the song while on a basis of friends where she wouldn't have the chance of hurting him. Her intentions can be seen as pure, but it doesn't seem that she is thinking on the perspective of the subject of the song.
Taking his perspective in to consideration, we can only conclude that even though he has agreed to been friends, that was half heartedly and by making amendments to his actions. It resonates that he is willing to take the risk and genuinely do care about the singer. Though the song says that the singer would no longer hurt him by swaying, and she also mentions that they are been just friends, all we can conclude is that might not be fair on the subject of the song. For instance, the singer can think on the perspective of the subject once and understand his concerns and intentions. Perhaps I might be wrong, but I think if he was there for her when there was no one else to stitch her up and make her whole again, we can assume he's willing to do that again. So as of time when the singer realizes this, she will understand his commitment and would genuinely stop swaying.
The concept of platonic love can be defined as following.
Platonic Love is a strong type of love that is essentially non-sexual.The earliest mention of platonic love comes from the Plato's dialog called Symposium. It has been a general discussion that has happened in 416 BCE. It was hosted by the poet Agathon to celebrate his first victory of a dramatic competition. The discussion has since become famous and plato has documented it in a narrative format of the respective philosophers who were present. Following is a fresco that was found showing the Symposium.
The origin of platonic love comes from the speech given by Socrates. The conversation in brief is as follows.
"Then, may I ask Agathon a few questions?"This is actually a conversation that is abstract yet carries a brilliant intellectuality. Love is of something that it lacks, thus when love loves beauty, that means love lacks beauty. But the fact that love lacks beauty does not mean that love is ugly! The argument Socrates states is as follows. He also states that he has burrowed the argument from prophetess Diotima of Mantinea who seems to be the mother of the concept.
"Certainly."
"Is Love love of something, or of nothing? A father is father of his child. A brother is brother of his brother and sister. Is Love in like manner love of something?"
"Certainly."
"It desires that of which it is the love, not possessing it?"
"Yes.""When it no longer lacks, it no longer desires?"
"I suppose not."
"Well, then, Love is of something that it lacks. But you would have it that Love loves beauty; therefore it lacks beauty; therefore it is not beautiful. And the same argument applies to goodness as to beauty! However, let me tell you what the prophetess Diotima told me, for I have borrowed my argument from her, since I was arguing with her very much as Agathon has been doing just now.
What is not beautiful or good, need not, therefore, be ugly or bad, just as there is a state of mind which is neither knowledge nor ignorance, but correct opinion. So Love is not a mortal, nor a god, since we have seen that he does not possess all beauty and goodness and happiness, which we must acknowledge the gods to possess, but is something intermediate, a daemon, interpreting between the divine and the human. Love is one of many such intermediaries. As to his birth, Plenty was his sire and Poverty his mother; he partakes of the nature of each. As the gods do not seek wisdom, since they imagine that they have it, but only the philosophers, who are neither of these; so Love is of necessity a philosopher, thirsting for wisdom as for all forms of beauty. Your mistake was in taking Love to be not the lover, but the beloved.This gives rise to a concept that can be applied to almost anything. The existence of a genetic intermediary, a middle layer between any two abstractions is explained rather clearly by Plato's examples. The concept itself is rather subtle, what is not beautiful doesn't need to be either ugly or bad, how true can that be in even the present context ? We as human beings always try to discriminate something to be either good or bad, but what happens to what's in between? The fact that we are in a digital world doesn't mean our choices are limited to been digital as well. This argument would lay a real light upon people who think our decisions should be of digital nature and there can be nothing in between.
Turning back to the concept of platonic love, Socrates further states the following.
LOVE, you say, desires the possession of beautiful things. What will he possess? The happy are happy in the possession of good things. Everyone desires to possess good things. But we do not admit that everyone loves, because we have selected a specific form of love, and chosen to apply to the species the name of a universal; just as every maker is properly a poet, but we have appropriated the name to a particular species of makers. Love, in reality is of every good, not of the missing half of oneself; desire that it should be ever present with it. It acts as the desire of generation in the beautiful, in relation both to body and soul, a something immortal in mortality as it were; not of the beautiful; but of immortality, necessarily, without which nothing can be ever present.As he correctly puts it, we are limiting ourself to a specific form of something, and neglect the fact that it can be polymorphic, that it can evolve and change, that it can have different forms in different contexts. He then makes his point on platonic love.
As for the phenomena of Love permeating all the living creation, they express the mortal nature seeking to become deathless by the one possible process of generation. For the mortal achieves immortality by the constant replacing of that which perishes, not by its separate continuity. So this Love is a tendency towards eternity and great deeds done for the immortality they bring. Sexual love is the expression of this craving for immortality in the physical organism; the work of all creative art is its intellectual issue, and especially of that political wisdom which we call moderation and justice. In whatsoever field this desire of immortality by propagation moves us, we must be attracted by the beautiful, and by beauty of soul more divinely than by beauty of form. But the children of the intellect are more desirable than the children of the body; for the former may bring the reward even of divine honours, but not the latter.He righteously points out that sexual love as the expression of the craving of physical immortality of the physical organism by continuation of a successor, not by the continuation of itself. And so he gives rise to the idea of a love that would make us immortal beyond physical means, a love is attracted to the beautiful, but to the beauty of the soul more divinely than the beauty of the physical form. Thus he emphasize that unlike children of body, the children of intellectuality achieves immortality and results in divine honors.
He who would love rightly must from the beginning seek to hold intercourse with beautiful forms, and love one, wherein he would generate intellectual beauty. But the beauty in all forms is one, and his love of beauty in form would be divided among many forms; whereas beauty in the soul being more excellent, one beautiful soul would suffice him even though the beauty of the form withered. Thus he would be led up to the contemplation of universal beauty, and the one science thereof. The beauty thus revealed is eternal, without beginning at all times, and utterly, and to all. This is that to which they attain who advance by these steps from the contemplation of beauty in particulars to the revelation of the supreme beauty. Such a one is at last in contact not with shadows but with the ultimate reality, and if immortality be at all given to human beings, he is thereby become immortal.The final piece of the conversation clears any doubts that the other philosophers had at the symposium. It is intended to emphasize the fact, in short, one loves to be immortal and thus it is appreciated to gain eternal immortality by bearing an intellectual child rather than the mere continuation of children of body. But at the same time, the platonic love for one's soul emerges from the argument. One beautiful soul would suffice oneself even the beauty of the form withers. Thus is it intended to lead one to contemplation of universal beauty.
This been a brief description about the origin of platonic love, let us move in to the context of existence of platonic love in present context.
It is often understood as relationship that is deep, non-sexual friendship between two heterosexual people of the opposite sexes. But this in turn challenges the ideology of platonic love, which from its origin was that of a chaste but passionate love, based not on uninterest but virtuous restraint of sexual desire. So it seems that the ideology of Platonic love doesn't exist in it's original form, but rather some variants of it exists.
I am god's child,
When you develop an infatuation for someone, you always find a reason to believe that this is exactly the person for you. It doesn't need to be a good reason, taking photographs of the night sky for example, now in the long run, that's just the kind of dumb irritating habit that would cause you to split up. But in the haze of infatuation, it's just what you've been searching for all these years.This is quoted from Leonardo Di Caprio in the movie casted in 2000 called the beach. I wouldn't go into explaining about the movie, but if you guys need an explanation or the outline of the movie, you can check it out here. As much as I want to think this as a simple conversation in a movie, this has it's roots deep down to the way the human minds work.
As the quote suggests, an infatuation for someone is just like a cloud covering a crystal clear sky. Sometimes it covers somethings that are too obvious if one did not have an infatuation on someone. But with this cloud covering your vision of rationality and logical reasoning of the brain, it will be simply impossible to understand the risks we have to face in pursuing the ultimate Elysium.
This is the origin of the so called soul mates or perfect match or whatever that has been called over the time. In the haze of an infatuation, one simply finds enough and more reasons to defend your infatuation on the certain someone you think who is a perfect match for you. As the quote suggests, it need not to be a strong reason, it doesn't even have to be rational or logical because the way your vision is covered, it simply wouldn't matter at all. The reason stated in the quote is quite circumstantial, but it does point out a good example.
Thus it seems that one can conclude the pseudo reality of perfect match is built up upon an infatuation you have on someone. In turn, these infatuation are caused by various factors starting from looks to initial impressions you get. But what one doesn't realize initially is that impressions are not permanent. They evolve when you gain experience and more exposure on the certain someone. And when they evolve and the infatuation seems no longer valid, sometimes your way past the turning point and can never go back. Frankly, that seems to be the origin of bad relationships.
I know I am challenging the very existence of a platonic love, but I think in turn it can exist as well. Because, an infatuation growing into a gradual dislike is one scenario in the picture, whereas an infatuation can also grow into a passion, something great, where one cares beyond the physical means and is and will be happy for the other someone even if they are not with you.
I am simply not making any conclusions here, but instead just stating the facts I think are related on this matter. So in my point of view, even in the haze of infatuation, one can find some reasons good enough to hang on to somebody and in turn, those reasons may well lead to a state of platonic love even if that isn't presumed to exist anymore. So even if you feel that 'it's all you have been searching for all these years', there is a god possibility that it might be true, whether or not the other would feel the same that is. And for all I can say, even in the haze infatuation, your instincts should work because human is after all an animal, and animals are primarily creatures driven by instincts, instincts to be safe and not to get hurt. Where all the logical reasoning would fail, let your reflexes to guide you and let your instincts to take over.
| Let me not to the marriage of true minds | Let me not declare any reasons why two |
| Admit impediments. Love is not love | True-minded people should not be married. Love is not love |
| Which alters when it alteration finds, | Which changes when it finds a change in circumstances, |
| Or bends with the remover to remove: | Or bends from its firm stand even when a lover is unfaithful: |
| O no! it is an ever-fixed mark | Oh no! it is a lighthouse |
| That looks on tempests and is never shaken; | That sees storms but it never shaken; |
| It is the star to every wandering bark, | Love is the guiding north star to every lost ship, |
| Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken. | Whose value cannot be calculated, although its altitude can be measured. |
| Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks | Love is not at the mercy of Time, though physical beauty |
| Within his bending sickle's compass come: | Comes within the compass of his sickle. |
| Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks, | Love does not alter with hours and weeks, |
| But bears it out even to the edge of doom. | But, rather, it endures until the last day of life. |
| If this be error and upon me proved, | If I am proved wrong about these thoughts on love |
| I never writ, nor no man ever loved. This is one of my favorite sonnet's of Shakespeare! It touches you in such ways that is too subtle to explain. | Then I recant all that I have written, and no man has ever [truly] loved. |
Perspective 1: Illusion
when you feel all alone....
when even the moon is turning it's back on you...
you can rely on one...n one....
but not the one you believe in....
but one,
and when the one you want is all along your way....
yeah, he's the one...
and,
it's just an disposable asset now.....
Perspective 2: Distortion
a background process....
executed when things are...
in an idleness....
no process, nobody, but emptyness....
it utilise the resources....
to the max,
and when a process...
seems tto emerge,
it just fades away....
into something....
it thinks a blissful idleness...
Perspective 3: Outbound Logistics
a background process,
an illusion,
a sweet coated....
disaster....
