Hi, I'm Divya. Hi, I'm Kahran. And this is... Thinking. I'm thinking.
Sometimes, sometimes, sometimes, after you've been alive for so many years, is there still sometimes? It's just predictable time. Am I right? Hibbe back, gotta know.
So George R. R. Marn and this physicist co-authored this paper for the Wild Cards Virus, which is this fictional pathogen that kills 90% of those infected while granting the survivors either mutations, who are then called jokers, or superhero abilities.
And so 9% of them get these mutations, and then 1% of them get these superhero abilities, and then they're called aces, but then some of them have stupid abilities, and then they're called deuces.
So they author a paper with how the viral behavior could exist, so both the severity of the transformation, and then how the viral outcomes would be determined by a multivariable probability distribution, and then they take into account the way the system will evolve,
like a Lengarian, Lengarian? Ligrangian. Ligrangian. Wow, so may my physics degree is useful. So the way the system would evolve a Ligrangian formulation,
formulation, excuse me. Anyway, but yes, when you were saying that western authors like to really make things make sense, I immediately thought of this, because this is literally... They don't really try to make things make sense.
They are obsessed with having things be cohesive, not cohesive. Having things make sense, as if making sense is the point of... Okay, so I clearly have a hostile point of view here.
I will say it in advance, but I don't know if you see something like, let's just put it away. There are so many small things that do not make sense, or something like howl's moving castle
is a story of a wizard with a moving castle. Yes, it's by the same person who did Spirit Away, right? Oh, Spirit Away, yeah, yeah, yeah. It's by... It's a deeply filmed by Miyazaki. And the interesting thing is like,
howl's castle is moving not because of some story reasons, but because tax evasion. Like, it's... And you don't... Like, they don't tell it in the movie.
They like, it's just in the book. It's made off of a book. But like, just the entire thing is like, a sequence of absurd, loosely connected vignettes, kind of a thing.
And these are like some of the... Like, if you've talked to somebody who loves Jhibli films, you know that like, people really, really, really, absolutely love them. I'm pointing at you.
I do. Yes. I also really, really love them. And I think like, part of it is because what happens when you're not super concerned about...
Like, it should have internal consistency. What happens if you're not super concerned about that? I don't know. Like, I just feel like, you know, art is supposed to make you feel things,
not worry about, like, is it logical? I don't know whose line it is, but like, fiction is a lie that tells you the truth about yourself, or something like that. Yeah.
I think if you like, zoom out on it a little bit, there's a lot of similarity to what we've been talking about in other points in the season, right? Because it's kind of choosing what is the definition of success for this piece.
And then if you're defaulting to this like, comprehendability, which I think in some ways is similar to what I was saying a couple of episodes ago, right? Which is, I feel like where I was in my kind of journey as an artist a little while ago.
Yeah. And I think when you start to identify otherwise things that you're trying to go after. So yeah, your conversation with Remy, where he was saying that they would play tests with forms.
And on the forms, they would ask people, what did you feel when you went through this chapter? And it's like, then right, you're being able to identify is this coming back to the right emotion, the emotion that you were trying to trigger.
Yeah. Or this range of emotions you were trying to trigger. Yeah. Whereas instead of it just being like, oh, do people understand kind of the key plot points
as they went through this chapter? Which I think is where a lot of things come from, right? Yeah. It's like, did someone know how to do this? Not how did they feel while they were doing this?
Yeah. And I also feel like, you know, the how to do this is like a thing that should be in service of like, you know, the emotional part. So I don't think that like the technical detail is immaterial.
I just think that like it should serve something greater than itself. Maybe part of it is also coming from just like, you know, having watched a lot of YouTube videos and, you know, people's reactions to different pieces of media.
It's just like, you need to have some amount of, how should I say, leave it in how you understand the stories or where does it make sense? Like I've been sort of like seeing on Reddit the feedback
that people have about 1000 times resist. And it's interesting. All positive reviews are like, oh my God, this game was incredible. I've had it so much. I like, you know, this is the best game I've like, you know,
I have played this year or like, you know, one of the best this month or whatever, whatever, right? But like people are using superlatives or like I related with this and then they're using some of the like, you know, they're saying hacky all more or something like that at the,
you know, end of their message review. And then the negative reviews are like, oh, I didn't understand this one plot point. And I just feel like, you know, that is a representation of like how we engage with art or rather I feel like
we shouldn't engage with art by trying to make sure that it makes internal sense. But more like, did it make me feel things? If it didn't make you feel things, you can move on. I don't know if we talked about it.
Like one of my friends had recently visited New York and Chicago. So he got a chance to go to MoMA. He was like, why is Rothko so popular? Why is Andy Warhol so popular? Why is Marshall Duchamp so popular?
I don't get it, right? And we were having this conversation and I was saying the same thing to him actually. I was like, I think it's very easy. It's rather easy to say that art should make sense or like,
you know, oh, I can see why Da Vinci is so great. But like me and his wife were trying to tell him that Picasso could paint like Da Vinci when he was really young. I mean, there are paintings of Picasso when he was 15, which look like, you know, the classical masters.
And then he moves on and does whatever he does afterwards. And I just think that like, you know, the story should have internal consistency is the same argument as Da Vinci was the best painter. He wasn't bad, right? Like he is really good, but that is not like that doesn't make him
a superior artist to some of these people. You're welcome to disagree. Isn't that the movement that we are living through, right? Where like modernist was like... Postmodernism?
Yeah, right? Modernism was more questioning of like, like, you know, does this form need to hold this thing? And now we're in this postmodernist era, which is kind of like questioning form altogether. No, but like the argument that like it needs to have internal consistency is a purely classicalist argument.
That goes like 1600s. Wait, is that the enlightenment? Yeah, that is the enlightenment thing. Things should make logical sense. Things should be coherent is a very enlightenment era artifact.
I think it's interesting where we apply that calculus culturally, right? So I think there's certain aspects where it's like, oh, yeah, you know, it's does this thing make logical sense for my life? And maybe that's certain kinds of purchases. And for some people, I think it's a spectrum where it's like,
oh, you know, it needs to make so much logical sense. But then there can be some amount that is about how do I make me feel. So, you know, and when I'm thinking about like things like cars or things like, you know, homes or things like furniture where it's like, oh, you know, there's maybe some degree of it needs to solve this problem.
But then depending on the person, there's some amount of that they're willing to apply on how does this make me feel? And that's how people end up with, you know, velvet couches or arm chairs or like, my dad has white leather seats in his car. And my mom was like, what are you doing?
That is so awesome though. And I mean, he was right or Tesla was right, right? That you can clean them actually really easily with whatever formulation they have done. So it's not been as crazy as one would think considering he has two grandchildren. Anyway, and then I was thinking about things like jewelry are still at that point of like,
you know, this is a much more about how this makes me feel. Almost nobody is buying jewelry because of a functional purpose. Maybe sometimes, right? You're like, oh, I want these like hoops. But more it's going to be like, how do I feel when I'm putting them on or how do I feel when I'm wearing them?
How do they make me feel? So just interesting. I don't know. I don't know what the other axes is. Like where is it that certain kinds of art start to go to?
Because, you know, performing arts, no one expects them to make sense, right? When it's on a theater or on a stage or in an opera or in a musical, right? Like you expect there to be some amount of disbelief or quiet. No, but I think like, so that's also what I mean. There is a certain amount of like form literacy that you have.
Like you can go to performing arts and you can feel like, what is this nonsense? Like there are people who would be like, why are these people just moving around? That wasn't nice. That wasn't skilled. Yeah, that reminds me.
I saw this play. It was a musical that was made of an album that I really like by Sufjan Stevens. And the album was called Illinois. But they made a musical out of it with no words. The only words in it are the lyrics of those songs which are being performed live.
And the entire album is performed. And I found it to be like so moving. It's one of the very few musicals I've seen twice in like a short run. But I remember talking to one of my friends. It was like, oh, I just didn't understand the plot at all.
And I was like, oh, and they're like, yeah, like how could you understand what they're because the entire plot is conveyed through dance and through movement. Yeah. Yeah. And to me, it's like, oh, you know, of course you have to have some degree of allowances
for the type of communication you're going to get when it's coming visually and not auditorily. Right. Like there's a narrative that's being told to just through your eyes. Yeah. So right.
So then maybe for me, my I'm further along on that axis that I don't know what it is yet. No, but I also feel like I don't know. For example, you read a lot of high fantasy, right? Like you read a lot more than I have ever. Average bear.
Average also. But like, I'm just comparing between the two of us. I know that you read a lot more. And I'm sure that like, you know, if you and I both read the same book, you will get like a lot more out of it, whether it is like, you know, references to other stories or like,
you know, oh, this is what they are trying to imply with this world building. You recommended that book to me, the Patrick Rothfuss book, the silent regard of things. Oh, yeah. Right. I'm like maybe 40% of the way through the book and love the writing.
Like I really love how beautifully he writes it. So like there, because it's like slightly absurdist, it's very hard to make sense of what is happening. I really love that part. But at the same time, like I know that most fantasy doesn't make me feel this way. Most fantasy to me feels like a lot of homework.
I have to remember this also and that also and that like, I remember that's how I felt. Even though Miss Bond was really good when I started reading the second book, I was like, I didn't expect to be having written a book report on the first one to be able to read the second one. What is this? Right.
While like in the silent regard of something things, it's just, I don't know what she's talking about, but it's just like so poetic and so beautiful. And I'm just like, Oh, I like the sense of what this is. And so again, like, you know, I'm slightly on the other extreme clearly, but I'm like, even if it doesn't make sense to me, if it makes me feel things, I'm happy with it.
But it would make sense, but like I can't feel too much or rather like the sense is too much in the middle of me feeling it. I think like I just start feeling like, okay, I want to have a one hand distance with this. I think it's a function of the kinds of inputs that you've had in your life and how much you've seen. Okay.
Things built just for form versus things built with some degree of whimsy or built with some degree of exploration. Because I feel like sometimes it's just like a what if this was done like this. Yeah. Do you know about this guy?
No. Okay. Oh my God. I'm really, these names are just too much for me. How do I even chat to you?
I'll just share my screen at you. How do you think you say that name? Freedin's Reich, Hunderdwasser. Great work. So Freedin's Reich, Hunderdwasser had these couple of museums.
I know. I'm just trying to move fast, real fast. So he has a couple of museums. He was an Austrian artist. He has a couple of museums in Vienna.
And one of them is the Hunderdwasser house. And it was just such an interesting space, right? Like the floors were uneven because he wanted to remind you to like have to pay attention to your floors and just the whole, the whole space had been conceived to be a gallery for his work.
But the space itself is a piece of his work, right? So Hunderdwasser house has this kind of like almost absurdist element to it. And it reminds me of Gaudi's work like the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, where it just made you kind of think about, oh, there can be these, these kind of adornments to buildings or thinking, rethinking of how buildings work in a
way that we've never grown up with. And I even felt that way when I saw some of the cathedrals in Europe, when I was younger, where I was like, wow, you know, there's kind of these buttresses and these things that are just so random, right? They're clearly not structural, but they're not fully decorative because I do have
some purpose, but it's just rethinking the way you would use a space differently. And I think like, for example, it's, I thought, think about it now. Like I think so little attention is paid to the audio space that you're creating when we build spaces now, right? And I think so much attention used to be paid to that.
Sure. In specific environments, people think about like, oh, yeah, you know, how would this work for a concert hall or something? But most of the time we're not really thinking about like, how is the audio landscape going to look like when the space is completed? So I don't know. That's where it's kind of, if I go all the way back to my,
my original point there. Yeah, I think if you grow up with different examples in different industries and different domains of seeing things that are not just about form, I wonder if that kind of invites this thinking around, well, maybe form doesn't have to be end all purpose of everything.
And I'm using form as kind of shorthand there for saying like a clarity in purpose, really, right? And I think when there's a lot of attention paid to a specific kind of form, or maybe I should be saying how the form, well, the form is achieving the function, I guess, then it's like everything logically seamlessly ties together and a knot.
And I wonder if that's kind of what makes us grow up with the thinking of this calculus that then we start to apply many domains, right? Including some kinds of art where it's like, well, you know, what is the purpose of this line? Right? Like explain why it's going like this and why it's this color. And it's like, well,
maybe it just makes you feel a certain way when you take it in as a whole. So like just a slight, I guess, contrary opinion to that, because I'm like hardcore from a STEM background in the sense that like, you know, I should not have this thought process either. I should not have the love for non-structured things either, right?
By our logic. In some ways, I actually think India as a culture, there's so much absurdist. Interesting. If you will, I know it's a very sacrilegious way to say it, but right, like just the way that practices have evolved and the way that kind of cultures
have intermixed and sometimes like intersect, it's like, what is happening? Like that Mela is going on right now, right? The Kube Mela, right? This is Kube happening. Right? And it's like, yeah. And that's just like a crazy thing.
There's going to be millions of people who go because the idea is that for a certain amount of time, this one body of water has some amruth, I believe is the term, right? Like is this like nectar of life. And so if you go and bathe in that water, you will have your sins forgiven. But the crazy thing is like it's a cross section of all of India where you'll have these like people who are holy men,
who like live naked and they will be showing up and then you'll have like really wealthy people being driven there and like private planes. And it's just like it's crazy how the intersections have led to this like moment where it's just like, what is happening here? How did this become this thing? I hear you. It's like, India is a bit crazy.
So it's like, you know, it's easier to embrace craziness if you're an Indian. And I think what's equally important is to not exotify or like other it. I think one of the things that I don't know if we ended up like putting it in the podcast or not. But one of the things that Remy and I talked about was this feeling of almost being like a digital immigrant, where you are half online and half offline.
And how that also feels like connected to the immigrant experience where you're like, I'm neither here nor there. Like I was also chatting about this to a friend and they were like, you know, millennials are the digital immigrants while Gen G's are the first generation digital natives. I just feel like, you know, even when you were right now saying it, I was like, oh, this is my Indianness. Even though I don't fully feel Indian when people talk about a lot of Indian things,
like even I didn't know that Kumbh Mela was going on and you did. But like it's just interesting that, oh, but there are some like, you know, underlying things that are almost cultural that I might not even realize. What you just pointed out is like, no, but Indians are so used to Jugaard that like a story that doesn't make sense, but somehow still works. You're going to be okay with that a lot more easily. People who are used to things making perfect sense.
A story that doesn't make sense when still works. It's really very true of many narratives in India. Yeah, but I think that like that pursuit of sense making is a little bit diluted. Like, you know, it's just replaced by also a pursuit of evocativeness. You know, it's like Indians love their spices and they're like, ah, give me all of them. Make the food as spicy as it can be. Put everything in it.
And for the longest time, I just didn't understand a lot of cuisines, which are like, oh, we are about fresh ingredients and we want subtle flavors. I'm like, what is this? Please give me spices. Please give me flavor. I don't want to check out the nuance in your flavor. I don't know, like, you know, we've talked about too many different things, but that's also what this is making me think about.
Yeah, I guess it's this notion that rules are not really meant to be there as rules. They're more meant to be there as guidelines. And, you know, people are always having incredible outcomes happen when they bent the rules a little bit. So why not bend the rules a little bit, right? Put all the spices in and see what happens. I was talking to Remy about it. I wanted to chat with you about it as well.
Like, how did you feel about that notion of if the process is different, it shows up in the final product? It's interesting because I think it's a question I felt a lot of resistance to. I think it's because I come from a place where I really like to feel like I figured out a form, right? I figured out how to do something. And then I'm going to keep doing whatever I need to do to make that the most efficient way to do it possible.
But this notion that if I was to try a different way of doing it, that my outcome could be different and different in a way that wouldn't be accessible if I did it in the way that I'm used to doing it, is kind of upsetting. No. Oh, no. It reminded me immediately how one of my classmates was really pushing me on saying, while editing something that they do is they cut out, they print out their work and then they'll cut it out line by line
and they move the lines around physically. And I was like, I can do that with copy and paste, right? I was like, this is a cute idea. I like to copy and paste. I do that anyway. And a lot of resistance to being like, I don't need to try something like that when I have a system that works for me. While I was contemplating your question, it reminded me of this and occasions the memory of this, right?
That I didn't try it and I wonder a little bit how much I would have a different outcome. I'm always reminded of like, you know, local minima or local maxima versus like global maxima. And how much does your pattern or your pathway get you trapped and you're into this thing which you think is the best it could be, but it's actually constrained by the way you were using to get there. It's a really interesting notion. I mean, I think the way you guys were talking about, what was it called?
Deviced theater, right? Deviced theater, yeah. Deviced theater, yeah. The way you guys were talking about devised theater was so interesting. I'd never heard of that, right?
And to kind of like have this notion that you're going to create with everyone in the room. And even when you have kind of roles assigned out, right? I think Remy at one point said that there could be someone who's job it is to kind of go and observe what's happening with the different groups and surface themes that can be used, right? Which is kind of like curating almost like it's not fully like the people who are involved are going to do it or going to be responsible for the curation aspect of it. When you have someone who sets their role, right?
They're more focused on actually like origination and creation and new ideas. It's just an interesting way of approaching. I'd never really heard of something like that, frankly, across any discipline. I don't think closest would be like maybe like, you know, people who build a game or build a product over a weekend. Hackathon types. Yeah, to have a kind of type startup weekend thingies.
Yeah. I also feel like there is a different dynamism to the energy there. Okay, so like, let's take our example. We have worked together for a few years, but I think everything that we've worked on is very structured. And it's very much like, you know, we will do this together and then we'll do this and then we'll do this.
Or like, you know, you take this part and I take that part. But I wonder what it would be like for us to like, you know, sit in the same space and just play and like come up with things, but not just ideation and planning, but also the creation. Like I don't know what it would feel like or what it would look like. As soon as you said this, I was like, oh, that is what I miss. Right.
Like that's what I used to do a lot of when I was in my previous roles would be just like to sit in white rooms with whiteboards and kind of just like create with people who like I enjoyed engaging with. And yeah, it's so true. Like I think in the three or four years we've been working together, we've had very few opportunities to do that because it's just the nature of distributed working right that when you come together, you generally come together for a purpose. Actually makes me wonder a little bit if there is some truth to like this is usually what's cited in the return to work mandates that like companies or governments are putting out right and saying that there's these things around like difficult to quantify types of productivity and mentoring that's hard to get when you're in these distributed workspaces. Did I answer your question?
I did. Yeah. So we kind of talked about editing to a purpose and editing for emotion. And I thought it was interesting when you were he was like I didn't bring such an analytical approach. It was like more of a mushy approach. As in like what do you mean by analytical versus mushy.
You were asking about the revision process. And you had asked Remy about how they managed to keep so many plot points and themes throughout. And he was like it wasn't a very analytical process that they brought to the revision. It was much more of like you know does this feel is this feeling kind of carrying on and kind of reference that they had spent a lot of time working together and working with each other's work. So it was kind of just like it surfaced.
I just thought there was an interesting little little tidbit. I also think there was something like undescribable about the device theater process. And it felt like when I was talking to him in words like he widely couldn't explain it in words. I still felt like there was something very tangible there. You know it's like I've been reading this book in a game of tennis and it's an interesting read because he talks about how do you become excellent at the game.
Right. So primarily most books are about productivity. Even like you know most of these kinds of books they're not about excellence. Very few books are about excellence. And how do you arrive at excellence in like you know something like a sport and how do you write a book about that.
Right. And it's just interesting because like a lot of his things are about stop trying to explain and stop trying to understand. Just to feel it. And when you feel it you will get it. And I've been trying to apply that a little bit in my workouts and I can feel the difference.
And while I can't say it I am stronger like the numbers say I am stronger. I am more energized. I am able to execute more cleanly. I can see results but I can't explain what I'm doing differently. Apart from the fact that I'm not constantly evaluating and explaining.
And I like to me it felt like the way Remy was talking about devised theater it just felt almost like that. That they had figured out how to do creativity without thinking about the fact that they're doing creativity. Yeah. And I think if you draw some parallels to other industries like I think the design thinking revolution was a lot to do with that. It was to kind of unlock creativity in people who felt like they couldn't do creativity.
And I think what Remy was talking about where you would do works where it might be people who are trained dancers with their parents. There it's like people who maybe haven't had as much of a creative life. Potentially they did right. But I'm sure in a group of parents not every one of them is from a creative background. And unlocking that within them is an interesting thing.
Yeah. I think that feels to me like something I would be kind of interested in thinking about as we think about like kind of what workshops we want to do in the future. And what kind of maybe spaces or experiences we want to create. I think creating experiences that do that for people is really special. As I think about some of the big foundational experiences in my life.
I feel like those moments where I really applied my abilities in a way that I didn't know I could really help me just progress and grow in a way that felt unfathomable almost to me beforehand. And some of what I'm thinking about is particularly experiences where like we went away and it like did stuff in the woods and like in nature and that kind of problem solving. Yeah. But there was like some set of experiences I had in college and then you know as I was working we would do kind of these off sites where a lot of them were team building activities or just plays or you're applying skills that you wouldn't have applied otherwise with people in your workplace. And as I think about what kinds of things I think would be exciting for us to kind of build expertise in in the future.
I think that feels very cool to me that being able to take these kinds of concepts that have been developed in certain domains and being able to bring them to other places and maybe even thinking about that as I think about what kind of things I want to create with my own art. Right. I've been really focused on the outcomes for a while and I wonder if maybe being more focused on the methods might be an interesting transition and kind of an unsticking place. That sounds really good. And also like really grounding because in a very weird way it also like takes away the pressure most of the progress.
I feel like we are always trying to make in a vector way. So there is like you know some force that you're putting in a particular direction. But I wonder what would result if you could just play. And that's why I found the device to theater process also really interesting because it's like you are actually just playing but you are able to create something quite incredible out of it. And I would really like to have access to that.
I think in some ways that's kind of been my dream for this event that I want to have where I feel like if you bring just incredible people together things will serendipitously emerge. And sure maybe some of it is kind of doing the giving people the ability to kind of approach it in a similar or open mindset. I think there is something really magical about being able to create those kinds of spaces. And I hadn't quite realized that it's a sense of play but I think there's a lot of truth in that. I think being able to take the attributes that we have built in non play settings and be able to bring them to that kind of play experience is a way to just think in a new way.
And we're trying to create things and figure out methods of doing things that are going to help you lead to different different maxima if you will. I think that's really important. You need to be able to say, oh yeah, I know that this is the way that this is done, but I'm going to maybe try something different just for funsies. Actually, I downloaded like the book that he talked about critical response. I like I've just started reading the introduction of the book.
It's basically a book about how to get feedback as a creative person and how to give feedback as a creative person and how to create environments where creators can give and receive feedback from each other. And I was like, this is going to be so useful for me and for people around me. And also like another book that he shared about devised theater, which I was like, you know, I can't do it, right? But like I still want to learn about it. Why can't you do it?
Because it just feels so special. Time is limited. There are so many things that I want to learn and do. And maybe this is not one of them. That's fair.
I wonder though if it could just be part of one, right? Like the same way we were talking about like parents being part of it with their kids who are trained dancers, right? Because I think there is something about these kinds of experiences that you learn by doing. I was kind of reminded of Katharik at several points during your conversations and hearing us now. Because Katharik, you know, when you reach a certain level of mastery, the idea is that you can dance with a tub-la player.
And as they kind of make movements and kind of just play with the erog that you're dancing to, you're able to kind of just dance with it, right? And so it is this completely, fully thing where you're creating the performance on the fly. You may still be telling somewhat of a story because in a lot of ways each erog has a certain feeling to it, right? And you may be using that or maybe just telling a different story, right? But you're telling it through a dynamic way of creating the movements.
Or, you know, am I learning Katharik because I think that I'm eventually going to become an incredible Katharik dancer? Not really, but it gives me a different way of thinking. And one of the things that I was very farmed of saying who's our Katharik teacher is that Katharik is not something you can learn from watching videos. Because there's so much of it that is just like part of being there in the room, seeing how someone is there, seeing how they bring energy and how they create energy and how they kind of like just respond to the space. That's what I'm trying to say. That I might not be able to implement or experiment with device theater, but I would really like to learn how to use that process in my own artistic process.
You know, in my creative collaborations, how can I bring in that thing? Whatever that thing is. Oh, you're not you're not buying it. Well, it just feels like you're having some resistance to the notion of trying it. And I was just pushing you on that. Possible. Like you don't have to be good at it to try it. You know, I don't think it is about good or bad.
There is also personal taste, interest, all of that, right? I don't think I would ever want to be a polymer scientist. And I'm sure it's a very interesting thing for people who do it. You're probably never going to want to be a welder. But to me, it feels similar, more of a flavor to I felt this resistance a couple of years ago.
I was taking a workshop with this gentleman named Shrikant Reddy, who goes by Chiku and teaches at the University of Chicago, but was doing a workshop at the Jack Kerouac School, which is where I'm doing my MFA. And this workshop, we were supposed to write poetry in languages that we didn't understand. I was like, what? It felt to me so weird because the notion that you were just kind of like trying to infer meaning based on like the shape of letters or like the sounds of them. It just felt like you weren't doing justice to the language and to the people who respected that language, right? Like in order to create something in a language, it feels like you need to understand what you're creating.
Otherwise, what is the point? And I know that that's part of how I approach art and how I approach thinking, but it was very, I had a lot of resistance to it. And in a way, I feel like I did the project in a way that made sense to me. Like I used chat GPT to translate different things and then like, you know, Shrikant is really excited for me. It's like, you know, you found tools that helped you make sense of this in a way that made sense for you, right?
And I was like, oh, I'm, you know, subverting the assignment or something. Like I was convinced I wasn't doing it, right? No, I think it was interesting. Oh, and then at one point we were in small groups. We took different lines from different people's works and then combined it together to this poem that was like across languages. Some were translated, some were not, right?
Like some were just lines of the translation. Some were literally lines of like the Kurdish or like the French or something. So it was just like almost nonsense, but it sounded like something. I don't know. So I had so much resistance to it. And even now I feel resistance to the notion of trying to do something like it because it feels too close to nonsense to me.
But I wondered a little bit when you were reacting because it feels to me it's not as far away as you becoming a polymer scientist. This is somewhat close to like the other types of creative works you do, right? Like you create all sorts of different things and sure you never created a performing arts piece, right? Or something that has like this formative elements to it. But otherwise, like you created a lot of disciplines very close to that.
So that's why I was saying. Now our listeners can really get into what our conversations are like. A lot of calling bullshit sometimes. I think like what is also giving me pause is the fact that my therapist has been talking to me about doing some performance art for some time. And I have just been like, nope, not happening.
That's kind of how I feel about drag, right? Where I don't know why are the strong feelings about it. But I'm like, no, that's not for me. And it's taken a while for me even to talk about the fact that I feel like it's not for me. And now I can finally I'm at the point where I can talk about it and now hopefully kind of sit with it and eventually, you know, sit with a question of why I have this strong reaction to it.
But maybe, you know, sometimes it's okay to not find the why and you can just move forward even accepting that this is feels bigger than maybe it needs to. Yeah. Yeah. So very honestly, oh, you are saying the other thing. I was just like, I have gone and like, it's okay. It's just not something that I want to do. And that's okay. Like, you know, you don't have to do. I think so. That's also another thing that I feel like I can tell myself that like you try enough. It's okay if you don't want to try everything.
I don't know. I think, yes and no. Obviously, there is an argument to be made for that we have limited energy and we have limited time. And we want to put it into those things that have interest to us. I think sometimes when it's art forms that we appreciate a lot and for some reason don't feel accessible to us. It's worth unpacking, especially when you are a creative person, because I do think that there's a potential that there's a side of your work that would be really expanded by having that be accessible to you.
I do think that there's a difference between sitting with the uncomfortableness versus sitting with the notion that you're, I don't know, forcing yourself to do something that you're doing because of reasons outside of you. But sometimes there's an intrinsic uncomfortableness and sitting with that is a very different thing than like, oh, you know, I feel like I'm supposed to like roller, what are those things that go up and down? Roller coaster, merry go roller coaster. Thank you. You know, the things that go up and down. But I'm supposed to like roller coaster. It's because kids my age like roller coasters and I think that's a really different thing.
But you know, no one says you're supposed to like be doing performing arts. I think there is like, as you were speaking, and I was finally letting it sit with me. It's very interesting because like a part of my brain is just like, there is something about the intangibility of performing arts where you become the artwork that I think I find very uncomfortable. So something like my wedding movie where, you know, I almost became an actor and someone else's story would make you feel very uncomfortable. Not that way.
Then? Because the output was still a tangible thing. Like it was a documentary. A performing art has a performance. Your performance is not tangible.
You can't tangible means touchable. Like so you can't touch it. It just happens. What if the performance was recorded? Would that change your feelings?
It was the aim that it is recorded. Because that would change your feelings. And like the recording has to be non incidental. But there is something about acting that I find a little bit like off. I feel like that's a place where it kind of different places because I feel like the place where I am, I want to explore the notion that there is an ending to tangible things.
And that if we think about tangible things as having a life cycle, there's this different way that we would think about them. Whereas I think today we often think about what do they look like when they're in pieces beforehand and then what will be the outcome when we put it all together. But then when it comes apart kind of gets forgotten. And I feel like you're kind of at least in the way you're talking right now, your focus feels a little bit more on that earlier part, which is like, what are the shapes when we put it together? And what is that going to be?
And the notion that it might not be anything is kind of you have some resistance to it. Or it might be something ephemeral, maybe I should say it that way. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Ephemerality is the part that I have an issue with, but also just like me not being a conduit, but the artwork itself is what I have a problem with. I want to be a conduit for the work, not be the work myself.
But if you created an avatar, you know, like Beyonce had Sasha, I think Sasha Fierce. But like she didn't tell other people about it, like, you know, Beyonce was Beyonce. Like, I'll sit with it. I'll sit with it. That's what I can say.
I think I've told you this before, but like when I write characters, oftentimes I write them in a way that they are, I don't know, I can have conversations with them in my head. And I feel like you don't necessarily do that to you. No, no. Because then it would just be like you're playing this character for a little while. Yeah.
Are your RPG characters always the same? Yeah, I'm the terminally good person, will do good things. You must help everyone RPG character. It's like a very real, I think we must have discussed it on the podcast also when I was playing Baldur's Gate, but like, it is a big problem. I just cannot do sociopathic runs for these games.
Like the first time somebody comes in front of me, they're like, I need help. I will not shoot them. Like even when I go in the, and they intend to get this time, they're going to be evil. And I'm just like, I can't play being evil. I have to play being me.
So maybe that would be the thing that it would force growth in, right? Because when you are performing, you have to embody a character. Yeah. It's not you, you know. Hmm.
This conversation went in interesting directions. I thought we were going to talk about a game that we have on the both plate and we enjoyed conversation about it. Hmm. Well, and then I think it's a question of if we bring it back to our unifying theme, right? It's like, well, does that kind of growth feel like success?
And I think knowing you the way I do, that's why I would push you in this way. Because I feel like when you are able to kind of grow, you look back at that and say, oh, this was a successful moment. These were successful periods for me. Yeah. It's interesting.
I think we're being able to kind of, I think, push ourselves and push with our podcast and kind of like reach out to these people who have just different kinds of thinking than us. It's really, I think, forcing evolution in my definition of success faster, where I'm like, oh, you know, I thought I was kind of there in some ways, you know, I feel like I'm not so much in the rat race. I'm kind of content with like kind of having made the money I have and having the earning capacity that I do and chasing the passions and kind of investing in pursuing my hobbies in a way that I can take my capital and accelerate my progress towards. And I was like, this feels like a very good and happy place to be. And now what I'm kind of wondering almost is, well, you know, what is the things that I want to be having a dialogue about, right?
And I think that this kind of limited time to be in conversation with all these other amazing humans that are alive with me. And what are the places that I want to talk to them about, right? Maybe it is just in the form and thinking about how do we use form in different ways and like actually just a pause in that for a moment. Like I never really thought about a game as a vehicle for art until you guys were talking about that. There's just such an interesting notion where it's like, of course, that's what this is, right?
Or Florence is also just like, it's a piece of art. That's just happens to be a game. Even a game that Remy mentioned, Kentucky Road Zero, it has been in multiple art exhibits as a piece of art because it is a piece of art about Americana. And just like that experience of the road trip and just like being on the move in these small, like connected only by roads, places and just like, you know, urbanization and all of that. Maybe we should make a game about growing up.
I feel like it's an interesting notion. Thank you for thinking with us. Visit thinking on thinking on the web at joys.studio to get show notes, past episodes and transcripts. Before you go, can you do me one small favor? Go online right now and share the episode with one person who you think would love it.
Until next time, bye. .