As I write this, a large specimen of the Corvus splendens persuasion sits outside my window, on the edge of the grill. He seems to be preening his feathers - while this is an activity traditionally associated with birds, I'd never expected to see a crow do it. Watching a crow preen itself is not unlike watching a guy pluck his eyebrows - you're left with a vague impression of ludicrous incongruity. I suppose the harsh caw of the crow and its complete lack of fear of the average urban Homo sapiens sapiens gives it a rather macho aura. Yes, even when it's female.
Disclaimer: I have never seen any guys plucking their eyebrows, but I have it from reliable authority that such individuals apparently do exist. Not that there's anything wrong with it. It just seems weird. Metrosexuality, anyone?
The aforementioned crow seems to have earmarked that particular area of the grill as his own personal fiefdom. He seems to spend most of his day sitting there, presumably enjoying the shade that his less fortunate fellows are busy searching for. My sister claims that he's been coming here for weeks. Apparently his loud disposition didn't find favour with her during her exams about 2 weeks ago.
Just managed to scare him off by waving my hand at him. Clearly he's not accustomed to me being at the window, so he made a run(flight?) for it the second I raised my arm. Otherwise, he strongly resists any attempts made by the rest of my family to evict him from his post.
My mom has strung a clothesline along the grill, and every so often she turns up and hangs some clothes there. Naturally, he's grown so accustomed to her presence that she could probably juggle five smooth stones in his presence and provoke nothing more than a raised eyebrow. Of course, I'm not entirely sure he has eyebrows...Presumably he'd raise a perfectly preened feather.
My dad often comes and takes a look out the window. He doesn't disturb the crow, and the crow doesn't seem to disturb him. They seem to exist in perfect equilibrium.
My sister, of course, is the only one who actively tries to scare him off. Being a perceptive fellow, Sir Crow realizes that she's probably more scared of him than he is of her(N.B: This is a girl who fears butterflies.). Consequently, he treats her every attempt with exquisite disdain. Her terrified shoo's arouse no interest in him, and when she shakes the clothesline, he doesn't even deign to look at her. In short, in his feudal view of the world, she is a mere peasant, unworthy of his regal attention.
While I wrote the last paragraph, he returned, sat still for a bit, jumped to another section of the grill, cawed at something, and left again. He then proceeded to repeat this routine three more times, with minor variations. So this perch is something of a rest stop for him.
As far as Sir Crow is concerned, I seem to be the only unknown factor in this equation. If I poke my hand out the window, he goes into a crouch. Relaxes the second I pull it back in. He still doesn't look at me directly. Fantastic peripheral vision indeed.
In a couple of days, he'll probably have downgraded me to 'Mere Peasant/Harmless Background Object' status. The second bit is owing to my computer's position next to the window. It's probably my imagination, but his last crouch was no longer as tense as the last. This is a smart bird if there ever was one. If there's anything to this reincarnation business, I'm coming back as a crow.
Time for me to get back to Digital Signal Processing. Fourier Transform, here I come...
Oh look, he's back again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
3.5 of 10 for wasting time observing the crow?? I certainly disagree! Diff ppl enjoy diff things.
Of course, knowing Nad for 3 yrs, i wouldn't really say that this is his type of tp, but still. In fact, such type of a blog coming from Nad surprised me!
Er, interesting idea, but sadly not true. One wishes, though :) ...
Seriously, I don't know where Sagar came up with this 'not really his type of tp' stuff. Just goes to show that even 3 years isn't long enough to really get to know people - hell, a lifetime may not be enough - I've found the old 'Can one person ever really know another?' sentiment in dozens of books. People don't really show that much of their true selves, even to their closest friends. Even though sag is something of an expert at deducing stuff about people, it's not exactly a hard science that will always work. And I'm arrogant enough to believe that I'm inscrutable to the average person, and difficult to understand for the rare perceptive ones. The 'mere peasants', in their blissful dumbness, have unconsciously stumbled upon a deep truth - to truly understand someone, you have to become that person.
It's like trying to run a simulation. There's only so much stuff that you can eliminate as irrelevant - eventually you have to simulate everything else by actually making an exact replica and let it do its thing. In the case of something as complex as a human personality, you never know what depends on what - I've often found my entire world view strangely shifted by one seemingly innocuous line in a book, or something someone said, or so forth.
The point of this overly long comment is that neither you nor sagar should have too much faith in your assessments of people. It's difficult enough to figure yourself out objectively, even though you happen to embody the extreme case of the simulation I mentioned. Figuring out simple people is sometimes possible - you can see the broad strokes, if not the fine details. But sometimes it's those fine details that make all the difference. Complex individuals with a greater degree of self-knowledge are practically impossible to assess with any significant degree of accuracy. There are too many variables for a human brain to handle.
As some Zen master probably said centuries ago: A man is what he is, and does what he does.
Man, they seem to have a monopoly on those sayings.
Post a Comment