The whole sqrt(-1) imaginary number thing has always been pretty abstract to me (and probably most others who learned them, but then never had to use them in their job or anything). On the flip side, the very own concept of imaginary and imagination in itself is a kind of abstract things too. For the uninitiated, what is Imaginary?- something that cannot be perceived, something that is imaginary? (lolz!, its like telling to understand recursion, you need to understand recursion :P).

With stories charted and realities imparted - I kind of always pondered about this Idiotism [IET] for a loong period of time now, but, unfortunately didn't quite find the zeal to pen something about it, until today, when I seemed to have a quibble with a friend of mine about the same issue. And the rest as they say was history, with me having some sort of a "halo" around me to at-least come out and "try" to define why we have something called "imaginary" and "imagination" at all?!

Let's now start with the basics..imagination for all practical purpose is considered "a power of the mind", "a creative faculty of the mind", "the mind" itself when in use, and a "process" of the mind used for thinking, scheming, contriving, remembering, creating, fantasizing, and forming opinion. On the other hand, as a medium, imagination is a world where thought and images are nested in the mind to "form a mental concept of what is not actually present to the senses". In the sense of the word as a process, imagination is a form of mediation between what is considered "externalized" reality and internalized man and finally, imagination is a term that circulates forms of mass media when the "internalized" private imagination is presented as public, or expressed in a media form, such as film or in virtual reality technology.

But, all said and done - is it not true to assume that the concept of imagination is nothing but a fight between our sense of what we consider private and essentially humanistic. Dosn't imagination challenge the technology to explore what media can do: how far inside man can media extend itself, and how far outside man can man bring what is considered his internalized self? Are these processes transmutable through media, and if so, what kinds? Can imagination be coded? Does technology employ imagination in its productive and innovative capabilities? Or is imagination a human faculty only? If the latter, than to what extent can media technologies mimic imaginative functions and/or expressions? And, if media technologies can mimic 'products' of the imagination, what is the essential difference between 'having' imagination and producing imaginative qualities?

I kind of feel that imagination is nothing but a mere matter of "reproductive projections". One's perception of the Imaginary is an essential stage of recognition of what is real and what is unreal. If the Imaginary is the reflected image in the mirror, it is probable that the imagination is the mental faculty for integrating this 'represented' image into the person's experience of himself in the world. If the imagination is a counterpoint to perceptible reality,then, implication is that the Imaginary is in fact representational. This representation, is a kind of mirror, a mirror that shows all your "reproductive projections".

So what exactly is that I talk about when I say "reproductive projections"? Well, I would say that its a simple concept of "filmi flashbacks", whose basis lies in a given or experienced knowledge that must be reproduced to 'short'(as in Electronic Circuits) the proof posited by the senses. For example, shouldn't one use her/his powers of imagination to deductively reason that even though s/he cannot see all sides of a cube s/he is looking at there are six sides to the cube. For, based on the viewer's experience, a cube factually and observably does have six sides. Were s/he to pick the cube up and examine it, s/he should see and note it as fact observable by her/his senses. However, since the viewer has the faculties of her/his reproductive imagination, s/he need not rely on her/his senses. Thus, if reality can be observed by the senses, imagination addresses a certain no-man's land between what is observably "true" or "real" and that which is considered totally "fictive" or "false," in a sense, imagination provides a shortcut. Imagination in this sense, fills in what could in all likelihood be observed by the senses, and apprehends a sense of reality based on the experience of the proof of his senses, without the executed proof.

Although, it would be really abrupt to end at this point - I still have no option but to end it (Thanks to the dearth of imagination(s) within me :P).However, I would sort of leave the entire quibble- still open ended- as to whether, imagination is indeed the ideal communication- to supercede our romantic notions of the untranscendable 'imaginations' or is a pure form of built in "Inception"?

I was kind of rambling about some serious stuffs and got into thinking about some strange thoughts connecting "Agreement" and "Marriage". Not sure if Mr. Krishnamurthy (Who thought us the basics of Legal Issues and Agreements) had a kind of induced inception into me, but, I some of felt that there's some connection between these two quoted words.. I am not sure if this would be turning into a reality someday (Maybe not on this level) But, a food for thought none-the-less..

My thoughts were could two people agree to make a relationship work and succeed. Think about arranged marriages. Two people basically agreeing to make a relationship work. Is it more likely for a commitment like that to work than for one built on emotions. Emotions will screw you up every time.

But if you have a relationship without the emotions and feelings and only on "agreement" to have the relationship work will it be a happy one? Will love grow between the two people? Marriages are entered into every day and broken everyday.

I know this doesn't make sense...but this is one of my rambling thoughts......

You never know when someone might catch a dream from you.
Or something you say may open up the windows of a mind that seeks light
The way you live may not matter at all,
But you never know, it might.
And just in case it could be that another's life, through you,
might possibly change for the better with a better and brighter view,
it seems it might be worth a try at pointing the way to the right;
Of course, it may not matter at all, but then again, it might.

-!nversed Poignancy!

At the 1994 annual awards dinner given for Forensic Science, AAFS President Dr Don Harper Mills astounded his audience with the legal complications of a bizarre death.

Here is the Case:

On March 23, 1994 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a shotgun wound to the head.
Mr. Opus had jumped from the top of a ten-story building intending to commit suicide. He left a note to the effect indicating his despondency. As he fell past the ninth floor his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast passing through a window, which killed him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the deceased was aware that a safety net had been installed just below the eighth floor level to protect some building workers and that Ronald Opus would not have been able to complete his suicide the way he had planned.

"Ordinarily," Dr Mills continued, "A person, who sets out to commit suicide and ultimately succeeds, even though the mechanism might not be what he intended, is still defined as committing suicide." That Mr. Opus was shot on the way to certain death, but probably would not have been successful because of the safety net, caused the medical examiner to feel that he had a homicide on his hands.
In the room on the ninth floor, where the shotgun blast emanated, was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. They were arguing vigorously and he was threatening her with a shotgun.
The man was so upset that when he pulled the trigger he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window striking Mr. Opus. When one intends to kill subject "A" but kills subject "B" in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject "B".
When confronted with the murder charge the old man and his wife were both adamant and both said that they thought the shotgun was unloaded. The old man said it was a long-standing habit to threaten his wife with the unloaded shotgun. He had no intention to murder her.
Therefore the killing of Mr. Opus appeared to be an accident; that is, if the gun had been accidentally loaded. The continuing investigation turned up a witness who saw the old couple's son loading the shotgun about six weeks prior to the fatal accident.
It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son's financial support and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that his father would shoot his mother.Since the loader of the gun was aware of this, he was guilty of the murder even though he didn't actually pull the trigger. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.

Now comes the exquisite twist-
Further investigation revealed hat the son was, in fact, Ronald Opus. He had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to engineer his mother's murder. This led him to jump off the ten-story building on March 23rd, only to be killed by a shotgun blast passing through the ninth story window. The son had actually murdered himself, so the medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.