ever walked into a museum and stared at an abstract painting?
you have the option of guessing what the artist is trying to convey…or you can interpret it whichever way you like.
the sweet is the child’s greatest desire, her love, her need, her existence. it is the food for her soul. she dreams of the taste, the feel in the mouth as she rolls it around and suck it, savouring its sweetness.
her mamma, on the other hand, does not believe in the beauty of the sweet. she is ever practical and sensible. she only knows that too much sweet is bad for her baby’s health and so she refuses to give her any, not even one single small bite. her mother believes that her love is enough for her little darling and the absence of such a small thing in her life will not make a difference. even though she knows that the child craves for the sweet everyday and taking even a small bite will bring her pleasure beyond imagination, mamma holds firm to her belief. there is zero nutritional benefit in the sweet. too much sweet will cause her teeth to decay. she is not the type of mamma that believes in handing out sweets; she can give her fruits, soft drinks, cookies and even chocolates, but just not sweet. it’s just not her style. all the facts are rolling in mamma’s mind as she looks at her child.
meanwhile, the child stares longingly at other children as they lick their sweets. she understands her mother’s standpoint but her deep-seated desire remains. she wants to ignore the rumblings of her soul, in order to be a good girl for her mamma, but deep inside she knows there is a part of her that will never be satisfied. the thought of going behind her mamma’s back to have her heart’s desire never crossed her mind; basking in the fruit of her satisfaction will not be complete if it was to be marred by guilt.
time pass. the little child grows older, without ever tasting the sweetness of her desire. her life seems emptier without the pleasure; her soul seems barren without the fulfillment. she no longer yearns for the sweet. not because it is not part of her anymore. not because she doesn’t like it anymore. she has taught herself not to need it anymore. if someone was to hand her a sweet now, it will no longer bring her the joy it used to. it will not give her the elation, pleasure or happiness that it would a long long time ago. it means nothing to her now. she lives, but her soul is a little less full.
this means nothing to the sweet.
this means nothing to the mother.
to the child, her life was a little emptier.
8 comments:
I interpret it whichever which way I like the painting that is...otherwise life would be emptier...
Whoa! That was deep, seriously. And all that from just one sweet.
LOL, my verification word is 'wigli'. Wiggle wiggle wiggle...
Give her other variations of sweets like Hacks or Fisherman's friend....and let her young mind learns that not everything is 'sweet'.
See? intepretation of 'sweet' can be abstract too. LOL
Is that what we call 'conditioning'?
It's just that I get a little confused when the mother refuses the sweet which is perceived not to hold any nutritional value; yet allows soft drinks and chocolates which aren't any better nutritionally.
Perhaps that is your point. The mother holds so firm in her particular belief, so stubborn that it contradicts the whole purpose in the first place. The stubbornness of making a point...
dear ff: haha, using my words ah?
dear jonzz: it's only deep to you cos you don't know what i am really trying to tell. however, it's the only way i can tell this story. stay still. what r u wiggling here and there for?!
dear cocka: *grins* the child has learnt to adapt to the other variations of sweet but she can't help wonder if life will be any different if she had been given the chance to succumb to her desires. u also want to play artist ah? sweet is sweetness even by any other name.:-p
dear ian: haha, u thinking of pavlov's ah? some ppl are like that, don't u agree? they hold firm to their own belief, eventhough it makes no sense. n they don't look at the whole picture or what effects their actions have on others. it's neither a right nor wrong decision. it's just a decision that has impact on other people.
ahh... sweets... how about flowers? we don't need flowers either right? Save some money on valentine's day. Condition your sweetheart to shun flowers. Ya.. that's a good idea.
dear bernard: you know what?! u r the only person that came closest to what i was talking about, eventhough perhaps u didn't realise it. haha, this is making it even more confusing. it's the other way round, my sweetheart have conditioned me not to receive flowers on valentine....then he decided to give them to me. go figure men out!
Uahh.. looks like i'm getting better at these riddles of yours. Unwittingly.
Post a Comment