"The Handsomest Man in the World" tells a very interesting story. There is truly beauty in imagination and in the reach of sympathy and compassion. This is a thought we can pull from the story.
In the story, a village adopts a drowned stranger ,and even some people from neighboring villages pay their respects to the dead man and adore him. The deceased stranger grows to be somehow like family to everyone in the village, though no one in the village or in neighboring villages ever knew him.This definitely demonstrates the reach of sympathy and compassion. Through the story, it becomes a somewhat beautiful reach, though maybe the prospect of what exactly is going on in the village is more than a little strange. Through the story we see that the villagers imagine what the drowned man might have been like, as if they knew him. The details get more and more elaborate through the story, and we know that there is a great deal of imagination going on in the village. The dead man inspires these people, and again, we see the beauty of this story.
I find that this story was well put together, and I like the passage. I do believe that this passage paints a nice light on imagination, sympathy, and compassion. This story gives you a lot to think about and to consider. This village went to a lot of trouble to be kind to the dead man. The story tells how the stranger came to be one of their own. Not only was he one of their own, but they painted him to be a remarkable person. They held someone they had never even met or heard of in the highest esteem. This thought is what is truly remarkable. These people had their eyes opened, and it didn't take much to open their eyes. It just had to be the right thing.
Could we be open to something like this under the right circumstances? I like to believe that anything is possible, but this question is one that might be best answered personally. Consider the past and the future. I'm sure there's something to observe there. The present might hold some clues, as well.
Friday, July 5, 2013
The Importance of Coexistance
An article titled "How Simple Can Life Get? It's Complicated" published in the New York Times addressed an interesting topic. The article in question is located at the following web address: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/science/how-simple-can-life-get-its-complicated.html?ref=science&_r=0. Why is coexistence a more relative topic than minimal genes and how far life can be stripped down and still live? Where do we go from here?
The article "How Simple Can Life Get? It's Complicated" approaches the study and investigation of minimal genes and makes a point of coexistence. The article states that the true essence of life may be more along the lines of coexistence that a hand full of genes. The wisdom behind this thought unfolds throughout the passage. According to the passage, we and other organisms require a certain number of genes to survive. We might not have to have to have all of the genes that we do have, but we still need a certain amount of them. Today a microbe called Tremblaya princeps holds the records for the minimal amount of genes required to survive. It's right to that crown could be contested because this microbe relies on another microbe which in turn relies on the latter, and the both of them rely on an insect that relies on the two to survive. The two microbes and the insect all require each other to survive. Tremblaya may not die if some of its genes are eliminated, but it will die if it is separated from the other things it depends on. Therefore, coexistence is key.
Looking over the evidence I can't do much other than agree. Coexistence is important. As for the thought on the relevance of coexistence over the relevance of minimal genes, I find myself agreeing with this also. The pursuit of the minimal genome was claimed to be a dead end in the article. My thought is that there is still probably something to learn from past investigation of the aforementioned thing. I also believe that there could be a future for the topic and the investigation of it. Should it be dredged up in the future, I'd like to think that maybe the research might be in light of a different cause and be put to use in a different direction. We don't always look in the right place. Being that as it is, maybe there is something to learn from everything. The species with the smallest genomes in the world only survive because they are part of something bigger. We can draw from this knowledge.
We can take the thought of coexistence and apply it to everyone and everything. We, ourselves, bank on a lot of things, including a lot of beings, to help us survive. I've seen and recognized this concept time and time again.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)