Food for thought
After watching Laxman's wonderful innings today, I have been wondering: Do his strokes evoke a sense of beauty in us because they are indeed so, or because our minds have been trained to interpret which strokes are beautiful and which are not by listening to commentators over the years, and feeding to our minds positive and negative instances of beauty as suggested by the commentators?
Hmm ...
posted by Harsha V. Madhyastha @ 2:47 AM
4 Comments:
classic nature vs nurture stuff?
i belv some amount of the elegance associated with laxman comes from the effortlessness with which he pulls of incredible strokes from off-to-leg
Yeah, you are right. This is the standard nature vs. nurture argument.
Note to self: Don't make blog posts at 3am after unsuccessful attempts at debugging code.
why r u cribbing abt the post -- its a valid question to ask :-)
i was presenting my argument abt effortlessness really in favor of the "nature" argument -- i.e., there is some element to his batting that appears like there is some magic/sleight-of-hand going on, and that part of the appeal of his strokeplay has to definitely be nature, not nurture
Just started reading your blog - that should explain why I'm replying to an old post.
I agree with "nice try". Most of us have played cricket at some time or the other and have a fair idea of which shots are difficult to pull off, Laxman plays these very shots effortlessly, which is probably why we admire his batting so much.
Post a Comment
<< Home