You ain't normal!

There is something weird about me. At the least, there is something about me that is "not normal", as people around me, never fail to mention.

I can sense it, rather, feel it, but am as of yet, unable to place it.

For me, its not the hope, but rather, the belief.
For me, its not the knowing, but rather, the understanding.
For me, its not the reason, but rather, the abstract.
And for me, its not the "coitus interruptus", but rather, the one thousand seductions before that.

Twenty six years of having been told that "You ain't normal", I carry a heavy heart. It sort of makes me cring. That I might never be one with the very society and its people I have always put before me.

My parents and my friends know of me as a "rebel". Others know of me as "foolhardy". In their own words, that is. And I have always failed to get it. Does questioning conventional wisdom necessarily make me a rebel? Or is it my questioning of the conventional thought process that makes me a fool? I would like to think its the latter.

Logic and reason. It all starts there I guess. I am an engineer. Or so my degree says. And for the better part of the last 8 years, I have worked with a whole bunch of them. They are indeed a smart bunch, that much I indeed need to give. Logic, objectivity and pragmatism rules their world. And needless to say, they are a very proud group of people. The IITs, the NITs, the top companies, the salaries... A heady mixture indeed. A thick vein of elitism runs through them. And rightly so, I tend to believe. So, is there a problem? A cause for concern? Hmmm... Nothing much, except for the fact that, maybe, logic, objectivity and pragmatism really rules their world.

I'm telling you, I am not an engineer. I never was so, never wanted to be so. The degree was just an aberration, and I like to believe that I would have been better off doing something else. And I would also like to question the very fundamentals of an engineer's thought process.

I'll start with logic. A friend of mine, an engineer of course, recently announced that there is "a certain" logic to everything. And that any problem can be solved logically. I don't doubt his words. But I do doubt he wasn't too brash. For him, logic is "the" way to a solution. For me, its "just one" of the ways to solving a problem and if need arises, totally dispense it off too! And that, I realize, is anathema sorts to the engineer kinds. He then argues, that I would lose objectivity if I don't base my approach with logic. Oh really? How many of you really think logic works in a relationship? Or that you might base your relationship with logic? Think again. And NO. I don't just mean your usual gf/bf stuff, but every interaction you have with people around you.

I'll now come to objectivity. This is the mother lode. The raison d'etre of an engineer. Wikipedia states thus, "[A]n objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the particular subject who studies it. An objective account is, in this sense, impartial, one which could ideally be accepted by any subject, because it does not draw on any assumptions, prejudices, or values of particular subjects." Bingo. There goes out the argument. Because one can never be thoroughly impartial, and because we cannot completely take away assumptions, prejudices or values out of the equation, one can NEVER be objective. More so when you are dealing with the most subjective of things. People. And I really doubt if the engineers can take this lightly.

As for pragmatism, well, a hundred years ago, if you said, you wanted to fly, you weren't pragmatic. My point is made.

And so it bugs me, when people come up to me and say, well dude, you spoke really well, but your argument lacks logic or objectivity or practicality. How am I supposed to explain that I might have had some logic that he/she might not have thought of as logic itself, OR, that I might actually need none of them and still can look at a problem in the fair way he/she might think? How can I explain to an engineer that intangibles might be equally important to the tangibles, OR, like in my perspective, more important than the tangibles? How am I to convince he/she that we ALL lack the ability and the means to decipher the right way or the wrong way and that anything can hold true?

I tend to think of this inability to understand as the "engineer's bane". The result of swapping "a perspective" for "a method". And much to my chagrin its irritating to the point of being annoying.

And so, I ain't normal. And guess what, I feel liberated, being just that. :)