Suddenly, I remember the day I set my parrots free. Its been over eight months now.
With each surge of life, a little more of that which we talk, and oh so ever often know, becomes Knowledge. Knowledge with a capital K, to distinguish it from knowledge. Captain K is that exclusive K, one that stands apart from corporal k in quality, and perhaps in a deconstruction of quantity. K is acquired through experience, k, through medial sources of information.
And as these little surges, as little waves which froth and bubble the seashore, as she sold seashells there (now why would anyone sell seashells on the seashore?), K up my life, each moment brings forth a drastic discovery. A discovery that: “ohmigosh! I’ve been doing thaaaat until now? ohmigosh ohmigosh ohmigosh! What do I do! Life is so hard! I cannot live! Suicide is the option!”
Of course, it, until now, is yet to result in a suicide, but with these little surges which cause this piling up of K, I change my life a little.
One such little surge of K made me realise that I had four parrots locked up in a big cage. Like, I really-had-four-parrots-caged-up-inhibiting-their-freedom-and-therefore-making-them-slaves-to-me-their-master. This realisation shocked me. Of course the values of liberty and equality needs to be upheld. Thankfully, and sadly, an incident sparked in my home terrain, where a cat killed one of my parakeets. That godsend horrible cat ripped the poor curious ‘ung one into smithereens. It was all a blaze of green and red. This made my parents realise that in spite of their best, they could not protect these poor little caged flying things round the clock. And therefore, as I was planning to timidly broach the topic of their freedom, my parents timidly approached me with the same. Overjoyed I, fixed a date for their release, and armed with a camera, we all fondled them for a last time, fed them, and set them free.
That’s quite a story, with a couple breaking up, and the heartbroken male coming back to spend two weeks in silent hope and mourning, and so on and so on. But this setting free incident makes me think of these values of liberty, freedom, freeness, et al.
Do these mental concepts (or, as some hardcore linguists might argue, linguistic concepts), if I may dare, mean anything to them green cuddly winged flybies? Is it an instinct? What is an instinct? Are instincts also constructs?
We all know how all animals rage to oppose capture. And we presume that these displays of aggressiveness are shudders that uphold the value of freedom, of free choice. Is it a move to keep the right to make their own decisions, or is it a move to oppose capture and probably instant death (in kingdom animalia minus Homo sapien sapiens, individuals don’t exactly capture animals to keep them as pets and cuddle them do they)? And therefore, if their move is just to escape death, are we not justified in capturing them and ‘taking care’ of them? Indeed, countless battles in the H. s. sapien world have been fought for freedom. Almost every battle. Kings defending their kingdoms through their soldiers. Nations defending their borders through armies. All trying to uphold their right to free choice. Or is that right to free choice just a farce? Oft quote we from the “animal world” to substantiate our quarrels, pogroms, and nukes. But is this instinct of freedom present at all in the animal world, or is it barely an instinct to aid survival? Of course, any child who came of age, let by its parents ‘free’ into the world will know how free-will is not exactly the best chance of an individual’s survival. Its basic logic that if all individuals in a kingdom followed the king’s advice, and surrendered their free-will to the Throne, no one had to die. If all conformed to the nation, there would be no prisons. What happens when both the king/nation/head and the subjects/citizens/parts are given free will is what we have in our world today – deaths, deaths, more deaths, way too many births leading to even more deaths.
At the very same time though, and now I chart across facts to observations and experience, the K, an interesting page in the Life of Pi reads that change and animals are not two signifiers that go hand in hand. Animals hate change. They do anything to oppose change. They want to lead their way in the same beaten path, over and over again, day after day, season after season. Of course, time is inconsequential here, its the rhythm which has to be maintained (lets not conform individuals outside the H. s. sapiens realm to constructs of sapienity, like time). An elephant wants to remain where it is, take a bath in the same river, traverse the same path over the seasons. A peacock wants to stay within its territory. A monkey in its fashion. (However, this proposal would put into serious question the theory of origin of life in one point and its consequent spreading, or rather, this proposal is seriously questioned by that theory). And from observation, and little little curious interactions with individuals outside the H. s. s. spectrum, I have to agree that Yann Martel has a point there. I have no readings or research to back up my claim, it is merely a subjective proposal. Now, put into this dimension, the H. s. s. world seems strikingly similar. It is to oppose change that kings oppose other kings, that systems clamp down deviants. But, how can that be when the mantra of the day is “change”? We vote for different political parties for change, Obama says “Yes we can” signifying a change from a noness to a canness, leadership gurus talk of making change a lifestyle, Robert Frost recites The Road Not Taken. But, think again, these keywords of change hide a system of not-change. Leadership gurus who ask wannabe leaders to make change their lifestyle support the not changing of the capitalist system which is catering to selfish dreams. Political parties who claim change, and a difference from their predecessors, are not talking of a change, but are talking of a not-change: roads shall be good, as they were, as they aren’t now, i.e., there shall be no change in their condition; development indices will increase, i.e., there shall be no change in the rate of change (or, in this context, “change” can be the same as expectation, and therefore, “change” is not change, but is just a shift from a physical state to a preferred mental state – like wanting to urinate, having a full bladder, and having urinated). Robert Frost asks not people to find really radical lifepaths, but to not change the process (or rate) of liberalisation. Humans have always opposed change. Oh come on, that value which reads in the “Well Being Scale” used by psychologists “Are you comfortable with sudden ruptures and changes in plans?” is just a farce; no one can be comfortable with changes, they can barely be more used to changes in plans, and the more used one gets to changes in plans, those very changes form the individual’s not change zone, and therefore, those changes cease to become changes, and they become variables in an itinerary of not change.
And for not change, we need free will. “Freedom is the freedom to say no”, says Shantaram in the book by Gregory David Roberts (it must be a thought which must have germinated some time much earlier, surely, but this is my source). And therefore, is this instinct of survival a tussle for not change, which is linguistically abstracted with terms like free will and freedom? And ergo just Let It Be and not change anything? Don’t cage the bird? Once you caged it, don’t let it free? Or if it continues to struggle in captivity, let it free?
i still remember the day i set my parrots free. and they flew flew flew over the river, grass, and trees. one stood by to watch and see, if its mate would come back and their love could still be. but alas. i still remember the day i set my parrots free… are they truly happy? h…a… …p….d.. … … y. . ? . .
