A Root Of Rationality

A Root Of Rationality

It is strange to think that some rational arguments have their roots in irrational opinions. Before one can make a stand couched in rationality, one can have a subjective opinion on the matter. Given this possibility, it is not unexpected that irrational motions can be defended by rational arguments. For example, an objective fact like “Rabbits reproduce quickly” can be verified by objective comparisons between the rate of reproduction of rabbits relative to every other living creature. It becomes harder to do so when saying “Rabbits have too much sex”, in which case it is a subjective motion that requires, in addition to the rate at which they have sex, the definition of just how much is too much sex.

Who defines such things, and how are they defined? In a subject as distant and perhaps irrelevant as figuring out how much rabbits reproduce or if they’re too sexed up, it’s easy to tell the difference between arguments based on objective observations (regardless of their correctness; that is due to the researcher’s methods) and subjective ones. Better yet, in matters that are of fundamental concern to people, like say group activities in a collectivist society or religion in a theocracy, one may be tempted to couch irrational opinions in rational arguments.

The examples are all over history. Consider Gallileo, who had his ideas turned down by the Church for contradicting what was then a well established dogmatic “fact”. Undoubtedly, even the Church at the time had perfectly good rational arguments to defend their opinions which were not testable in reality. It was simply a matter of faith.

This leads to a crisis of faith, especially in matters where uncritical thought is celebrated. As some may quote Einstein, common sense is a collection of prejudices acquired by age 18. Being a collection of prejudices, the only real defense is to have some people thinking critically about what is widely accepted as the established reality.

Granted, it is impractical to have all of society mulling over every single matter, fearing for its factual accuracy or practicality. That would probably be as bad as or even worse than blind faith (or better, seeing as a surprising number of misconceptions could be hidden in common sense matters and someone may question the practicality of capitalism itself). Still, it helps that the rational arguments be tested for epistemological errors, and not just in the social sciences or “hard” sciences, but indeed in all areas that may harbor them. This would probably help prevent rationality from experiencing a serious case of root rot. As my subjective opinion on the matter, it should also be tested to verify its status as a viable option in an uncritical world.

Christmas Overseas

It is a most curious experience, spending Christmas in another country where Christmas isn't that big a thing. You can walk along the streets and not hear Christmas songs. That may be a good thing, seeing as the place is comparatively untainted by Christmas consumerism. However, it does also rob the feeling of Christmas.

Sometimes I ponder on the Grinch, and what Christmas is really about. It's not just about presents. Not that I exchange Christmas presents anyway. It's really about the intangibles, like being with your family and happy together. Or simply the celebratory mood that accompanies the season.

What is Christmas like in a country where it isn't really celebrated? Truly, it feels like any other day, with the exception that you're well aware of what the day means to yourself, and that feeling is a very, very private and personal thing.

Yes Man

Here is yet another movie that made me think. Which, of course, is a good thing considering that I expected Yes Man to be a rather light-hearted comedy. It turns out that the movie is quite the meaningful tale of how one can learn to live, but not to do so artificially. One cannot mechanically get a life, though one can find a way to loosen up and find enchantment in everyday living.

The drawback, perhaps, is the sort of stereotyped "life" that is presented as worth living. A life that seems to me to be suspiciously like that of a social addict. While it may be healthy to have a social life, being overly social and having little time for oneself sounds like a recipe for disaster. Besides, who's to say that one cannot have a "life" without voluntarily getting involved with lots of people?

Still, I feel that this is a rather good couple movie and meaningful. It made me think about what I've been saying "No" to, when I could (and wanted to) say "Yes". Sometimes, it's good to open up a bit more, methinks. And as for the show, I'd say it gets 8.5/10.

The Long Tom

Some days, you get lucky. Today, I kinda did. Someone donated a nice Pentacon 500mm f5.6 and it's pretty much exactly what I've been looking for for a long time. That is, a sturdy long lens which is capable of taking the shots I've been longing to make.

While I haven't actually managed to shoot using it just yet, I'm quite pleased that my current tripod is comfortably capable of supporting it. This means I'd be able to peg the longer exposures with confidence. That comes at a price, of course, since the lens itself already weights a healthy 3.5kg.

That aside, I guess I'm gona name this long tom...Hubble? Or should it simply be Long Tom. Ah, decisions, decisions...

The OM Bellows

After a long and expensive search for a good bellows unit, I finally settled on the Olympus bellows. Come to think of it, I should have kept searching for a bargain on the piece rather than walking in circles around its price. Anyway, it turns out that the bellows is really the only one worth bothering about.

For one, the bellows comes with a focusing rail under it. Moreover, the front and rear segments are fully reversible and mobile. That's quite an improvement even over the swiss piece I currently have, which has a fixed rear segment. Now that's something worth spending money on.

Of course, now my main issue will be to figure out how to modify the old bellows and/or get it offloaded...

Transcending The Human

The more I notice the disparity between logic and instinct, the more I feel that there is a need to transcend the human condition. That is, to transcend the instinctive animal that humans are, and to try to become more aware of one's deepest, darkest motivations.

As heuristic creatures, humans are quite adapted to life in the "wild"...which is quite different from the highly ritualized and regimented society that most urbanites live in nowadays. Yet this adaptation to living in a relatively uncontrolled environment can have many negative consequences in a controlled environment dominated by rational thought. Indeed, rationality itself can become corrupted by untrained instinct when subconscious urges lead to an imperative to drive a rational argument to victory at any cost, even to the detriment of logic itself so long as the argument may be won.

This is not to discount the intuitive side of reasoning, whereby one is in tune with one's feelings. In fact, understanding the roots of one's intuition and feelings is a step towards transcending the animal nature, whereby one knows why one feels as one does. That not only helps avert rash acts that may be later regretted, but also prevents oneself from being manipulated by others without realizing it.

The Day The Earth Stood Still

This will perhaps turn out to be a film that is a sign of our times, what with the constant fear of environmental disaster and the seeking of salvation from utter devastation. Actually, considering its theme, the film actually turned out to be pretty good.

Of course, we'd have to deal with the funnies first. The aliens (actually alien), turned out to be pretty human. Keanu Reeves human. They're quite ignorant and reckless just like humans, but we'd probably deal with that in another post. Primarily, everyone cracked up the moment dear Reeves decided to speak mandarin, and managed to royally mangle it (they really should have stuck with English). Oh, and how America tried to deal with ultra advanced aliens in a Bush'esque manner, then wonder if we managed to scare them off.

Overall, it was an ID-style end of world film, with infinitely advanced (and this time invincible) aliens trying to destroy earth, with the inevitable heroic ending where the earth gets saved. While I loved the theme of salvation where humans begged for another chance to save themselves, I felt it was pandering to the overdone idea that humans need to save their own planet, yet not inspiring any real drastic actions to the effect. Then again, that's probably not the objective of such a film...

I'd say 7.5/10, primarily because of the cool animations and nice concept, but it really could've been a lot better without the mangled mandarin and overly human aliens.

Izzy Hilton

Maybe I'm slow. Maybe I'm crazy. Or maybe I'm just Malkavian. But I dare say that Izzy Hilton is definitively incredibly cute. Alright, so I'm slow at catching on when it comes to these things. Go ahead, blame the Malkavian. I dare you.

That said, it is incredible what a neat little package he is (pun intended). By crushing on him, it's entirely possible to be simultaneously lesbian AND straight...all at once! Alright, perhaps this is quite out of character for me, but then sometimes it's just nice to cut loose. Anyway...this also means I'm back. Finally. After being grilled for incredible amounts of time while doing absurd stuff. Oh, and in the meantime? Get a Nosferatu to turn Izzy, wontcha?

Random Discoveries

Randomness promotes discovery. Actually, it is the random events that help "create" new things, such as the happy accident that spawned penicillin. Without the possibility of such randomness, the more unusual discoveries may never have been made and perhaps life would be a lot more boring.

Yet such discovery would prove more difficult to spot in the absence of controls. Had the petri dish not been known to contain certain organisms and the expected results known, the mold growing may well have been accepted as a regular occurrence and discarded.

It may be a lot more likely to have these discoveries in the presence of controls, but control must be allowed only to an extent. Should controls be so stringent as to forbid the acceptance of discoveries outside the realm of control, many breakthroughs may be discarded before their time, and discovery itself be significantly set back.

Death Is A Certainty

Everyone dies. At least, that's what most people are inclined to believe. That is, they believe that everyone is mortal, so they will die. However, how true is that? Can people truly die? What is death, then? Is it the body? The mind? The memories? Clearly not the spirit (where applicable), since the consensus seems to be that spirits are by definition dead already so they can't die again.

Most associate death with the death of the body. The person everyone once knew suddenly keels over and is dead. Yet what is it about the body that allows it to die only at that very moment? Cells are grown and die in a continual cycle. Even those cells that "died" did not die all at once at the moment of the person's death. Clearly, cellular death is not true death, or a preserving someone's immortal cancer cells will keep that someone from dying. Perhaps death lies in the person's award-winning personality instead.

That is quite flimsy an assumption, unfortunately. One's award-winning personality is unavailable when one sleeps. If one assumes that the personality would return after someone wakes, then it makes little difference if that same person went to a far off land. The assumption holds. And the person becomes effectively immortal till proven that the personality has faded. More importantly, the person is also effectively dead as soon as the person is brain-dead.

Yet personalities change, so the concept becomes yet blurrier. If the said personality were to change significantly that it no longer resembled the original, has the original person died? If that person "died", then the physically immortal may "die" as well. Would death not be a certainty, then?

Divorcing death from the body is probably not the idea that most hold about death, but it is one form of immortalization that many seek. After all, Elvis has not effectively died as long as people still remember that award-winning personality and everything related to it. As long as the memory persists, Elvis never died.

Unfortunately, the literal avoidance of death may be far more undesirable than anything. Like a new car, the novelties of life may rapidly fall away. What happens when one becomes ultimately sick of living? Will death, then, become a certainty?

To Forget

This morning, I recalled a mistake I made a year or so back. A mistake of forgetfulness. Granted, I could not be sure whether the initial act would have come to anything, but I will never know now. What's done is done, I guess, and perhaps it is for the better. I justified it back then, but I can never be sure whether it was "correct" in a right/wrong sense. After all, justifications are but one of the delusions that one gladly subjects oneself to.

Was it the inconvenience, the awkwardness? Was it the fear that something would have gone wrong? I do not know, but what I do know was that the whole thing happened because I forgot. It started as an elaborate plan, but is no more now.

Why sleep?

There are times when I sit around being annoyed at myself. Annoyed because I gota eat, sleep and deal with other bodily functions/requirements. What a drudge. I'd sooner sit around reading, shooting stuff, playing games...anything but the mundane day to day functions. Then it hit me. That was a perfect example of consumerism.

To be precise, the disdain for sleeping and eating is symptomatic of absorption into a capitalist, consumerist society. Granted, some of my activities are productive (which is also desirable for a capitalist), the others are acts of consumption. Indeed, few activities are actually for their own sake, besides the desire to either perform production or consumption.

While it may not be so bad to actually live some aspects of the capitalist life, it is disturbing how pervasive such views can be in modern society, and how insidious they may be that people go through the motions without realizing what they're doing.

The Alpha

There are many people who are purported to be "Alphas". They're stereotyped as aggressive, domineering, competitive and so on. Of course, they are also often male, since an equivalent female would probably earn the less favorable term "bitchy". Now, what is curious about the idea of the alpha is that there seems to be a contradiction between the theory and execution of the role.

An alpha is supposed to be a leader type, and really quite self-assured. That means the alpha isn't likely to get all huffy about potential competition. They'd be relatively certain of their position. The desperate jockeying for power by the alpha-wanabes is quite telling. Some might say that, well, there may be more than one alpha in the area, so there's competition. Fair enough, except that, besides the rarity of alphas, it is entirely possible that the two alphas form their own packs and remain in competition longer.

In fact, it takes a real alpha-type to get out there and say "Fuck this. I'm outta here." The uninitiated may regard this as an admission of defeat, but only a real alpha would be sufficiently self-assured to shrug off the perceptions of the lesser creatures, and live their lives as lone wolves. There just aren't enough packs out there for every alpha to have her/his own.

Max Payne

I played the game. Come to think of it, I played both of them. Max Payne as a game is quite the noir story. Fortunately, the movie itself did not disappoint. Granted, it certainly lacks the fun bits that were in the games (at least the first one), but it does have a charm of its own. Not to mention it included most of the key game characters.

That said, I was very disappointed with the presentation of Jack Lupino, seeing as how they decided to throw in the War on Terror theme in the context of the Valkyr problem. Moreover, he turned out to be quite the pushover when he was such a stunning and memorable character in the game. Same with Mona Sax. By the way, what happened to the Finitos and dear whiny Vinny? Ah, well.

Overall, I'd say it was a way better delivery than Hitman. That doesn't say much considering how much they managed to screw up the character of dear Tobias. Still, I'd say Max Payne deserves an 8/10

Meet The Medic

Medic bag. Fashion statement. Tasty. Personally, I was never really fond of sling bags and other similar single-shoulder bags. In fact, I'm reminded why I developed that dislike when I started loading up my medic styled messenger bag.

Then again, I was really in it for the coolness and didn't intend to replace any of my regular kit with this bag. Not something people would carry that often, but hey...I'm the medic. From Stuttgart. With the healing gun.

Rights And Responsibilities

Rights are invariably paired with responsibilities. If one has the right to do something, one would have a commensurate responsibility. There are problems when one does not recognize those responsibilities, especially when the exercising of those rights irresponsibly is likely to cause harm to the self and/or others.

Take for example the right to "rule the world", as many people are inclined to believe they are entitled to. That is, the right to use the world as they deem fit. Yet such a right would also involve responsibilities, like the ethical treatment of other things living on the earth. Things such as humans that can be harmed by pollution.

On Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is a measure that inspires dread. Most sane people would be quite unwilling to die at the gallows. Defending their homes against an enemy...maybe. Getting run over by a car...nasty, but still better than being executed. Capital punishment damages not only the body, but the reputations of the condemned and by extension the reputations of their family (foolish though it may be to attribute one's bad conduct to one's family).

The question, though, is what capital punishment truly solves. The penalties are harsh. Harsh penalties are to be avoided. Perhaps those with something to lose would shy away from criminal activities that involve capital punishment. Those that are caught will be made examples of. What of those who have nothing to lose? They will do it all the same, but with a greater emphasis on not getting caught. In fact, in the desperation brought by the knowledge that they are going to be condemned, they may well fight all the harder when in captivity.

Capital punishment implies the belief that some people are beyond redemption. Beyond reform. Reform is the prime goal of a system of incarceration, yet these systems are often what goes most horribly wrong in a country. What can a country do in the pursuit of justice? Will executions help solve the problem of crime?

Conscription: The Rite Of Citizenship

A country that cannot find citizens willing to defend it does not deserve to exist. That much is frighteningly true. It takes a really bad country to be nasty enough that the citizens are unwilling to defend it. Yet conscription is terrible when forced on the people. I would really rather have 10'000 solid troops at my back, than 100'000 who may or may not run away when the shit hits the fan. Others will beg to differ, of course.

Heinlein's suggestion of the idea of conscription as a way to citizenship is interesting, though rather simplistic. Should people wish to wield supreme power (in the form of voting), they need to serve their term in service. Yet the service of some will invariably be less grueling that that of others. Some will be in the line of duty during times of war, and others will be cooling their heels in the boot camps when bullets refrain from flying.

People who have served their nation are in no way "better" than those who did not. Perhaps they were cowardly, scheming or brave enough to serve, but that does not ensure that they know how to pick good national leaders. Basically, one would be putting supreme power in the hands of sheep.

That was an interesting suggestion in the story, that the nation's fiercest are being funneled into federal service, and turned into sheep. Sheep at the beck and call of their superiors, and ultimately the national leaders. Is this a good rite of citizenship? Do we really want to have a bunch of broken, obedient voters, and a cadre of independent thinkers who are unable to vote?

Starship Troopers

Here I am, reading yet another classic that was written quite some time back. I guess I was too taken up by the movie to consider the possibility that it could have been based on a book, and that the book can be so very different from the movie (and animated series). Well, again, I am not disappointed by the book.

Critics may say that Heinlein was essentially using the story as a long political essay, and the lack of depth of the characters does seem to substantiate that claim. In fact, the characters are pretty much like what one would expect out of a recruiting brochure, whereby the cookie cutter rookie grows from recruit to grunt to officer. Well...I'm really here to read a good piece of military literature that seems plausible enough, and I got it, along with a good dose of some biased political discourse on the military.

There are times when I wonder if I'm pro or anti military. The reality of militarization is that once one encounters a militarized society, it is quite foolhardy to calmly stay demilitarized and assume on good faith that the other will not attack. Moreover, I am totally in favor of the view that a country that has no citizens willing (note: *willing*, not pressed-into-service) to defend it, does not deserve to live. On the other hand, it is quite disturbing to know that we're handing the authorities a loaded gun, and any madman (it's almost invariably the men) will come along and cheerfully pull the trigger at the most inopportune time.

Still, I like the book for what it is, warts and all. I care not that Heinlein never went for combat drops. It was an entertaining read, and provided some thought-provoking ideas of what a military should be like. While I may not agree with all the ideas, I dare say that it was worth it just to know that they exist.

A Time Crisis

Never before have I experienced such a crisis of time management. I recall having lots of free time a couple years back, with the opportunity to play games at my leisure, and even the choice to go out for fun whenever I felt like it. Something changed in those years, causing time to be eaten up.

I realize the issue is probably due to online communications of various sorts. Being a rather solitary sort, there's always time to do stuff once schoolwork's done and all the usual chores. However, chatting is but one insidious way to fritter time away. It's not difficult to spend say 2 hours online just chatting with friends. Seems nice, and an alternative to going out. However, that adds up to 14 hours a week. That's approximately 2 fun outings.

Then there's the time consuming issue of actual outings, whereby friends would ask you out to movie sessions or parents would like company to the mart. Sure, it is quite acceptable to accompany one's parents from time to time, but that adds up, too. Not to mention connective spent on the transport and whatnot. Overall, is it any surprise that I no longer have the time to pull off the all day gaming sessions that I used to? Perhaps being a hermit once in a while is not quite so unacceptable after all.

On Individualism And Activism

It seems that activism may be more "feasible" in cultures that are more individualistic. That is, the activists feel freer to do their thing. After all, activism can be a rather lonely activity, especially if it is done in favor of fringe groups.

Often, activism is for something that is not supported by the people in power, otherwise there would be no need for activism. This implies a certain form of resistance that may not be socially acceptable. This is a clear problem in a group-oriented culture. For example, if a culture is highly group-oriented, the actions of an activist may reflect poorly on the family. More practically, an activist in such a culture may be expected to help support her parents, and this would be problematic if she is unable to find regular employment due to the social stigma of activism.

Effectively, one's dependents (e.g. parents, children, etc) are being indirectly threatened in such an environment, and the activist becomes easier to manipulate. After all, activists are often willing to sacrifice themselves to a greater or lesser extent for the furtherance of their causes, but will likely balk at the prospect of having loved ones/dependents suffer as a result of their actions.

On the other hand, one living in an individualistic culture does not always have to contend with such issues. She can easily choose to eke out a subsistence income level while supporting her cause. That is, without incurring social censure for neglecting the group in favor of personal pursuits.

Brave, Or Stupid

Many will acknowledge that there is a fine line between bravery and stupidity. On casual examination, the two are remarkably similar. They typically involve the actions of one, at great personal risk, in order to achieve something that is exceedingly difficult. Where does one draw the line?

Strangely, there is no hard and fast rule to determine what is stupid, and what is brave. It is often a subjective evaluation made at the point of action, or (for others) after the act itself. The evaluation itself is culturally situated, and what is brave in one culture will often be outright stupid in another.

So which is it? Sacrificing oneself for others, or having an every person for herself attitude? Do we charge forward when the enemy is encroaching, or do we hold the trench? How can one hold the line, when one does not know where the line is...

The Relationship Contract

At risk of sounding authoritarian, I believe that relationships are contracts. They are agreements between two or more willing parties to stay within the certain terms of those contracts, to the satisfaction of all concerned. If the terms of the contract are violated, the contract itself is in danger of being voided. Hence, it is useful to lay down the terms as precisely as possible, early on in the game.

This also means that the contracts may vary depending on the parties concerned. For some, the contracts are exclusive, and cannot include others within their terms. For others, the contracts cannot be exclusive, but must include others. The flavors in between are numerous, and may incorporate a number of clauses that either party finds essential.

Overall, the true danger (and wonder) is that the contract is not set in stone. Not everyone will be sure when they have violated a clause, and even when notified, which clause it was. Yet there is wiggle room in that some are more forgiving than others of violated clauses...

Price Vs Value

When consuming goods, it is all too easy to be blinded by their price, to the detriment of the evaluation of their utility value. When shopping, a glimpse into the bargain bin will remind people of how they made countless impulse purchases on "cheap" goods, only to find the same goods piling up in their storerooms. Strange, how low priced goods can represent such poor value.

I think the trick to spending wisely is not just to spend as little as possible, but to spend as little as possible on goods you actually need. That is, to learn to evaluate the "value" goods have when they're in your possession.

Ironically, getting better value may occasionally involve buying items that are more expensive than their alternatives. The thought seldom occurs to the budget-minded because it's just so counter-intuitive. Still, it must be remembered that the economy is not perfect, and some goods are simply "better" than others, with "better" being a subjective value known only to the consumers...

On Composing

Composing pictures seems like such an easy thing. Take your camera, raise it to your eye, frame a shot and then snap a picture. Yet it is possible for two photographers to take similar vantage points of a single scene, and still generate two completely different compositions. In fact, it is often that one photographer captures an exposure that's popularly deemed as significantly better than the other's!

Composing a shot is something that comes with the experience of knowing what works and what doesn't. For some, that means shooting with a long lens and pulling nice shots out every single time. For others, it is with a wide. Perhaps the higher goal is to be able to pick up any lens, and make every hit count.

Rolling A Bear Market

It is curious how people can see fit to sell their profits and hold their losses. In a game theory based logic, it is one of the worst possible ways to make money. It puzzled me for the longest time, because assuming that a stock was bought at a dollar, and it started falling constantly, the logical thing to do would be to sell it at a loss (relative to the original price paid), then buy it up after it falls.

The net effect is such: You started off with say...$1000. You bought a unit of stock at $1. The stock fell to $500 and is still falling. Common sense would dictate that the stock be held, since selling would realize a loss of $500. That's 50% off your initial capital. A really big deal. Yet many fail to realize that it matters little what the stock is worth. It is still a single stock unit. You effectively have no liquidity while holding that one unit. Assume that you sold at $500, and bought it back again when it fell to $400. Now you have one unit of stock, and $100 liquid.

Psychologically, it may have felt like you're now holding $400 stocks instead of $1000 stocks, but realistically you're still holding the same thing. What if the stock never appreciates back to near the level you bought it for? You'd be stuck holding an illiquid asset. Wouldn't it be better to maintain some liquidity to dive into the bear market when it starts to hit the bottom?

Gambling Stocks

For many people, dealing in stocks is very much like gambling: They are in it more for the experience than actually making money. I realized the motivation behind holding stocks for extended periods of time: It is very much like playing a jackpot.

A jackpot machine typically has two modes: One where you constantly haemorrage cash, and another where you hit the jackpot(s). These would correspond somewhat to the bull and bear cycles within a market.

During a bear cycle, stock prices are going down. You lose 10 cents, gain 6, lose 12, gain 8, lose 4, gain 3. The overall trend is downwards. Yet it is the small upward movements that keep people in the game. It is like when the jackpot machine gives out all these little winnings to keep people playing. The small winnings never exceed what you threw in, but they are powerful motivators.

During a bull run, prices are going up. That is like when the jackpot machine gives a smallish jackpot (but not the big one). Many players are satisfied enough to cash out at this point, effectively selling their profits. Everyone else would pat themselves on the back, and then try their hand at the machine again.

The cycle repeats itself until people go bankrupt, or they hit the jackpot. It is much akin to the jackpot, considering how few people actually turn a profit at this game. Yet a game it is, with (albeit constantly changing) rules. One who masters the rules has some hope of winning the game. How many, though, are willing to learn those rules?

On Acceptance

Acceptance is a curious thing. Even the greatly self-centered (like myself) are wont to feel some measure of satisfaction when others accept them for who they are. Perhaps it is an affirming thing. A confirmation of who one is. I believe that one should always be sure of who one is, though others approving of the same will always be more pleasant.

It is a strange feeling, being irrationally pleased when one's friend finally accepts some quirks in one's being. It has little bearing on the friendship itself, and certainly has little practical use. Yet many are strongly affected by such sentiments, and even grow to crave it.

I am not one such. At least not craving positive affirmations from others. I guess the satisfaction still stems from some primitive biological imperative that ensures that people are quite likely to stay together and thus improve their chances of survival. I'd question, however, how useful that is in modern societies where it is actually possible to live life as a lone wolf.

What Is Reality?

Reality is such a personally constructed thing that sometimes it is uncertain which is reality, and which is fantasy. Take for example the case of someone who hallucinates. Their reality is questionable, and requires much corroboration before the facts can be ascertained. It is arduous and so much so that some opt to ignore them instead. Those who hallucinate are simply not credible.

Yet there are other times when truth is indeed stranger than reality. In a legal court, common sense prevails. What happens when common sense fails? What if the truth is stranger than fiction, such that innocents are incarcerated on the fact that their cases are simply implausible (but true)? Again we face the crisis of reality.

What is real? The question is asked so often that it is really quite trite by now. However, it seems that there is no definitive reality, only the one that people choose to believe in. Does this make their reality more real than that of the hallucinators?

Racing Everything

I note that people seem to have an unusual propensity towards attributing certain behaviors to groups. Perhaps it is part of their understanding of what a sense of belonging is like. For example, if a person is lazy, the person is not only evaluated as being lazy, but also a sort of representative of her group. There are many possible groups, like religion, social class, etc, but the most common of which is race.

In fact, everything is often raced. If someone gets scolded for no apparent reason, it's likely a matter of race rather than personal hatred. Why? Because of social hierarchies around race within a specific context. If a person is being lazy, it's "obvious" that she's so because of her race.

Being highly individualistic, I find it bizarre that people seem to like to think in terms of groups. It would be more sensible to individually categorize people in accordance to their observed behaviors, rather than to attribute such behaviors to their respective groups. It is not only not scientifically sound, but also quite detrimental to one's well-being when the assumptions prove false.

Wall-E

Wall-E has nowhere near the depth of KungFu Panda. In fact, it seems to be a rather simple lover's show, with an intention to foster feelings of closeness and affection with its themes. Yet I admire the developers for it, because they chose to create a narrative that began with no typical dialogue. It takes quite some doing to make robots conduct a narrative entirely on emotive sounds and body language. Body language...on a robot? Wow!

The show has themes like sticking with your loved one through thick and thin, self-sacrifice and overall altruism. It also involves sticking to one's duties and the concept of rebirth. Unfortunately, such themes are really quite overdone. There is little to explicate on these, as just about everyone has been over these before.

What was impressive was the balletic symphonies of movement and sound throughout the show, creating the depth of visceral experience that is difficult to match in an animation. This is probably where it outshines KungFu Panda: The sheer elegance of the animation. Granted, these are two very differently themed shows and the differences show.

Overall, I found the narrative somewhat flat. Yet as a show it managed to hold together, and I especially liked the Nausicaa'esque end credits. I dare say the show deserves a 7/10, though I'm sure as a lover's show it deserves a clean 8.

4Bia

4Bia (pronounced phobia) is a thai horror film that comprises a bunch of short stories. Naturally, it's to be expected that the films are uniformly freaky and really quite scary. If anything, the images of the ghouls will stay with the viewer for quite some time to come. I know they stay with me. Still trying to banish these. I'll succeed...eventually.

I noted with some amusement at their skillful manipulation of the storylines such that they needed a minimal cast to pull it off. Unfortunately, it's not quite a narrative masterpiece, or even particularly innovative. The short stories make extensive use of really ghoulish makeup for the spooks, traditional in-your-face-with-loud-sound scare tactics and Stephen King'esque twisting of the real and the hallucination. That, and the bad CGI in a particular story. In fact, the narratives seemed quite disjointed due to the short story presentation, though there were efforts to tie things in by subtle details like newspaper headlines and references to the other stories. The use of deus ex for some scenes was disturbing, too. I can get it that supernatural events lead to really unusual goings on, but in a cinema narrative it really just seems that they cooked up a supernatural reason for some things to happen, without introducing the props first. That just makes things look unplanned. Sometimes, it also helps not to explicate overly much of the gory details, since at times the imagination can cook up far greater and more realistic horrors than any low budget CGI work possibly could.

To be fair to the film, I guess the rating would have to be spread over two areas. As a film, I don't think it deserves to have more than 6/10. However, I would highly rate the horror value of it, including the very progressive and inexorable build up towards the horror climax. For that, and its gruesome ghosts...I'd give it a very nice 9/10

Mini Movie Marathon

I had a most interesting impromptu mini movie marathon today. My friends asked me out to watch the thai horror flick 4Bia. Scary stuff. Then another of my friends asked me to watch a movie with him...immediately after 4Bia. So yeah, we went to watch Wall-E. Lovely contrast.

I guess it was somewhat interesting considering that I got the movie date right after the show...and at the same cineplex as the one before it. This probably also means that I'm going to be writing two reviews on the movies.

After the movies, I caught up with another friend, who brought her gal friend along. Talk about chained outings. I've never felt more productive (seriously!) since I basically managed to socialize with 3 groups of people in a single outing. Now that's a great way to compress outings so that time is not wasted in transit.

Eco Tourism

Eco Tourism is very nice when taken at face value: It showcases the delicate and beautiful face of nature, encouraging others to cherish and hopefully work towards protecting these natural places. In fact, it'd be far better were the people inclined to actually protect other places that may have endangered species that are not exactly pleasing to the eye.

While the lofty goals are admirable, I would question the benefits of eco tourism in the real world. For one, the eco tourist sites are often operated with profit in mind, with lip service and limited real protecting done at the site apart from preserving the lucrative attraction. Moreover, the high human traffic invariably brings with it pollution in the form of litter and vehicle fumes. That apart from the noise pollution and disruptive camera flashes from overzealous tourists.

More harm than good? Quite likely. Besides that, there is always the chance that tourists fail to understand what nature is truly like, being exposed exclusively to the beautiful sight of things. Fireflies twinkle, but they are still bugs...presumably the sort that little girls still fear after seeing the fairylike creatures flashing in the dark. Jungles are still rather dangerous, as are the beautiful rolling dunes of the desert. Perhaps it is also necessary to promote conservation as much for its own sake, as it is for the majesty of nature's power.

Geronimo And The Native Americans

I was reading a book on Geronimo, and could not help but be reminded of how the madness of people can easily spread to consume even the innocent. Fueled by the driving forces of expansionism and the gold rush, the Native Americans found themselves being pushed towards the brink. In effect, one had been usurped from one's rightful home, and assigned to a halfway house. All that, simply because someone powerful figured that hey...you just weren't "civilized".

I am saddened by what is by no means an isolated incident. Ever since humans invented the idea of warfare and conquest, peoples have been pushed from their own homes, only to have the invaders enjoy what was originally someone else's. Unfair? Yes. But such is the way of Darwinian civilizing. The stronger (militarily, usually) civilization often manages to drive the other out.

Perhaps there is no end to this madness, seeing as how the same greed and power madness pervades "civilization" to this day. Time and time again people have opted to claim for their own, things that never should have been theirs in a fair negotiation. At a state level, land theft is seldom resisted as firmly as that of the same at an individual level. There will always be noble spirits that will resist the tides of madness, but can they hold the tides back? Was Geronimo truly happy to have become something like a white man, if only for the good of his people?

Morality For The Masses

The great unwashed masses are fickle. That much is known of them. It is almost the one constant that binds them together. Without the aid of a constant, the masses constantly shift their focus and their values. It is the introduction of a fixed morality system that keeps them in line, since they have decided to subject themselves only to the morality that is prescribed to them.

What makes them free, then? By seeking the moral, they choose to bind themselves in an artificial prescribed morality that may not conform to any universal (if universal even exists!) morality that is extant. But if morality is not fixed, what is it that drives the masses that they can believe in something that may not even be true? This could explain the readiness to believe in deceptions: In their unwillingness to think, they prefer to live their private lies.

The Limits Of Power

Truly, with great power comes great responsibility. Apparently, that is even if one is unwilling to take that responsibility. The more powerful a person is, the greater her options in life. Things that were not options for less powerful folk now have to be considered. Will one be willing to flatten yonder mountain, or to preserve it? The very act of not flattening the mountain has effectively allowed its continued existence: Still a rather significant act!

In a way, a responsible person of power enjoys far less freedom than a comparable one with significantly less power. Every act has to be carefully considered for its repercussions in larger society, or at least the environment. It is the powerless who can choose to be less responsible: The powerful cannot help but be responsible for *something*.

It is therefore a strange thing when a powerless person yearns for a slice of great power, without being willing to accept responsibility for the exercising of the same. In trying to gain more freedom through ability, one simply loses freedom through responsibility. What a balance.

Away From Home

It is a strange feeling, that one just does not belong where one is. Some people call their places of origin home, simply on account that they came from there. Perhaps they are right, and they truly belong where they were placed. I cannot shake the feeling that I am not home, and that it is someplace else.

Sometimes I encounter various stimuli...sights, sounds, smells...something at random. It will remind me of the wilderness. Somewhere that never had humans, and where the rhythms of live were different. Yet I realize that the wilderness as it is now will not welcome me. It is different from the one I know. Alien. It bears a passing resemblance, yet is not the same.

I guess I will sit by the trees and the animals, thinking about the place that is no more. It almost seems like they understand, but perhaps that is an illusion as well. What else does it feel like, to be away from home?

The Politics Of Performance

Sometimes, I wonder at the political power behind China's Olympic ceremonies. Granted, it was utter greatness in the realm of performance, but one might wonder at the political might that was necessary to pull the whole thing off.

For one, there was great financial expense...which may or may not have been approved had it been held in a country where people were more inclined to be more individualistic. The performance spread from the representational to the real when the city dedicated to the event greatly restricted traffic within it, and even had cloud banishers to ensure that nature did not rain on the party. Finally, they completed the experience with the smiling ambassadors deployed throughout the city.

Was this likely, or even possible in a less authoritarian country? Though capable of feats of synchronicity and discipline, one must wonder at the controls necessary to keep the people under control to this extent...

Oiling The Cogs

Investment in healthcare is investing in an intangible: It maintains the units of capitalist production. Strangely, though, the authorities often opt to spend as little as possible on intangibles in favor of the tangibles such as industrial production.

This does not compute, especially in an economic sense. An economy that spends appropriately (as far as needs are met) on these intangibles would have a steadier stream of healthy workers and thus enjoy greater per capita productivity. By oiling the cogs of the machine, the cogs will simply perform better.

Some may argue that the presence of such incentives may encourage freeloading, to the extent that efficiency actually falls. While I concur, there are measures that can be taken to reduce if not eliminate freeloading. Enforcement is one way, and raising workplace morale is another. With increased morale, the motivation to skive is reduced or removed considering the fact that one can improve one's reputation at work by not doing so.

Conspiracy Of the Powerless

When one thinks of conspiracy theories, one tends to visualize the shadowy "Organization" which is all-powerful and highly secretive, quite able to pull the strings of governments from behind the scenes. These Organizations typically have tentacles everywhere, and influence everything. Even recycling isn't safe anymore: They have their grubby paws all over it.

Nobody ever seems to consider the possibility of a conspiracy by the powerless. The disenfranchised who appear so downtrodden that nobody spares them a second thought. Would these not be the perfect candidates for would-be conspirators? After all, they are hiding in plain sight, and are clearly far more numerous than those mysterious Organization guys.

In fact, the signs are all around us. The powerless permeate society, lobbying for change that favors them. In fact, they, too, could be sneakily slipping chemicals into the water supply or collecting your refuse for DNA samples. There's nothing that they cannot do...and nobody suspects them...

Feminism

One of the key feminist arguments is that much of what is pushed by the patriarchal hegemony tends to be androcentric, and has values significantly different from those that women hold dear. Values such as compassion, understanding, gentleness, cooperation, amongst other things that characterize feminine conduct and are often pushed aside in the mad rush that's become associated with capitalism.

Those values seem to be very much in line with the hegemonic concept of femininity, that is, how women ought to behave and how their personal attributes should be. However, given that patriarchy permeates the hegemonies of most extant societies, it is not unreasonable to surmise that these same values are in fact put in place by patriarchy.

In a way, the struggle against patriarchal domination merely serves to strengthen patriarchy by validating the definition of femininity. Yet it is possible to be discredited as a feminist by choosing not to subscribe to those values, since one would appear to be quite unfeminine to the observers! Of course, it is never easy to unseat a hegemony, especially one that is so pervasive in practically every society!

Who Are You?

This question is often asked of people who are perceived to have overstepped their boundaries of authority. It is interesting how there must always be a justification for who someone is before they will be listened to, regardless how well-meaning a comment may be.

When one tries to get a word in edgewise, often in the context of a meeting with strangers, it is not uncommon to be challenged with the question "Who are you to say this". Or that. It is in fact rhetoric, and requires no answer. It really is a sort of dismissal of one's value as an advisor, and often a get-the-hell-out-of-my-face signal.

Yet once someone introduces themselves as an old friend, or some similarly obscure known figure, the tone rapidly changes. The attitude abruptly shifts from one of disdain to a markedly improved condition of trust. What happened? They realized exactly who it was.

Fluff Sells

Most people do not like fluff. In fact, they absolutely can't stand it. Nobody likes things that sound good on paper, but have no real substance. That's the theory, at least. In reality, fluff is subjected to the exact same self-deluding tendencies that govern the desire to be deceived.

Strangely, when exposed to certain subject matter that's known to be fluffy, such as marketing, people readily recognize that it is not quite "respectable" (as they understand it). Put it in a more scientific context, with apparent numbers to support the statements, and the people will happily lapse into their blissful coma of acceptance.

Where lies the difference? Perhaps an excuse to be credulous, considering that "hard figures" were included in the explanation. After all, it is easy to lie with statistics, but easier to lie without...

On Tidying

This is probably not the first time I'm saying this, but I'll say it again anyway: Tidying is probably one of the most boring and tiring activities available. In fact, I'd rank it higher on the undesirable housework list than doing the laundry and washing the dishes.

For one, tidying involves physical labor. Lots of heavy lifting and then delicately placing each item so it looks neat. Then comes the mental strain of deciding whether to discard an item, and if not, then where to place it so it still looks neat but is readily accessible. The two may be mutually exclusive, which causes a yet more stress. After everything's done, you move more easily around the house, but nothing much has really changed.

Laundry is comparatively easier. Now, it may involve some heavy lifting to move wet laundry around, then hang it all out to dry...but it's quite a no-brainer to decide where to put them and how to fold them. After retrieval, at least you have clean, non-stinky clothing to wear. And that's always a bonus!

Interestingly enough, mom never gets tired...or bored when it comes to tidying. It's like her recreational activity or something. Apparently, the sheer satisfaction of having a tidy place is enough for her. Ah, well. *grabs toothbrush and merrily scrubs the toilet floor tiles instead*

Human Nature

If there is ever an excuse that I'm tired of hearing, it's the allegation that "it's human nature". Ok, so state a fact to cover up bad conduct. Someone fights? It's human nature. Someone gets angry for no good reason, then doesn't apologize? It's human nature. People go to war and kill lots of innocents? It's human nature.

That trite excuse is about as valid as the outdated she-can't-vote-because-she-is-a-woman argument. Why? 'coz she's a woman! No, really. Yes...she's a woman. That much is obvious, huh. To me, claiming that something is human nature indicates a patent laziness and utter unwillingness to change for the better. In fact, I would go so far as to claim that the atrocities committed because of "human nature" go above and beyond the normal range of animal behaviours. Truly, these humans are worse than animals because they are well aware of their actions and are deliberate, yet possess the cunning and capabilities to execute them with extreme prejudice.

I am not perfect. I can get angry for no good reason and totally blow up. But after that, I don't stay angry and I try to mend things back up. More importantly, I learn from the experience and try not to blow up in future situations. I cannot say that it is easy, or that it is always successful, but one should always try.

Submitting to this wonderful shield of "human nature" allows a socially acceptable excuse for inexcusable actions, and is a "reason" not to improve oneself. It is very much like choosing to follow one's barbaric nature without any willingness to change. Sure, it is natural to be that way because one's born like that, but that is no excuse for not trying to improve one's lot in life!

Animal Willpower

Many theorize that only humans are conscious (and that animals are not) and thus are able to rise beyond their primal urges. I argue that it is not only humans that are conscious, but that animals are in fact capable of overcoming their primal urges.

The examples abound. We have dogs starving by their owners' bodies without eating them, dogs have saved lives at risk to their own, many mammals are known to show grief at the death of a fellow and conduct themselves in ways that are contrary to what one would expect of pure primal survival instinct.

What conclusions, therefore, can be made about willpower? Clearly, it is not exclusive to humans. Perhaps the time has come to learn to respect animals, instead of readily abusing them simply because they do not seem to fit the common human-centric assumptions regarding sentience.

A Tribe Of Pornographers

It is interesting to view our contemporary society through the lens of a future anthropologist. The assumption here would be that the anthropologist does not have all the facts, and, consequently, the resultant analyses may be done out of context. In fact, the conclusions could be completely incorrect.

Consider the anthropologist analyzing the archaeological sample of a porn CD, and finally devising a special reader to view its contents. From common knowledge, there is a tribe known as the "Pornographers" who are exiled from polite society. Their practices are seen as abhorrent by a significant proportion of the world. However, the reader could not view the contents of the CD, as all that came out was a strange textured surface. Clearly, this would lead to speculations as to the ritual actions of these Pornographers...

Studying things with imperfect information may result in conclusions that are actually out of context. Of course, with the case of an extinct civilization, the context may never be known as much of the data on their activities will be corrupted.

For Love Of Deception

I would go so far as to say that the public loves to be deceived. In fact, I dare say that the majority would love to be deceived, and to live in their own little fantasy worlds. As much as this sounds fanciful or even absurd, that is because one hates to know that one is being deceived. Once the deception is revealed, the suspension of disbelief is shattered, causing a really bad case of cognitive dissonance.

Take for example the Olympics opening ceremony. The backlash from revealing the misrepresentations within the event was very great, as much as the rest of the event was found to be perfectly acceptable or even wonderfully executed. While some may cite political motivations behind the revelations, it does not discount the fact that the backlash was significant, and more so than what could be likely to be organized using political funds. Clearly, the people concerned had their illusion shattered, rendering the performance false (as it was, since by definition a performance isn't "real" the way spontaneous reality is understood).

By the same vein, a gambler would gladly throw incredible amounts of money at what's known to be a losing game, ignoring the kind advice from others that the probability of losing was far greater than that of winning. Instead, they cheerfully fixate on the *chance* of winning. This is an unlikely situation should the audience actually abhor being deceived and actively seek out possible deceptions...

Bigger Leaves

For the longest time, I observed that the money plants had bigger leaves on top. The higher they went, the larger the leaves got. I accepted it as fact, but never really sought out the answer to this phenomenon. My initial assumption was that they went higher to get more sunlight so they made larger leaves. The assumption held water until I realized that not all higher spots were better exposed to the sun. There goes one hypothesis.

While I was walking along the school corridors, I looked at the huge leaves of the money plant, and asked it why its leaves were so big. Then I got a flash of insight. The answer was transpiration. Now, money plants have fleshy stems that transpiration pull due to their suppleness. The higher they got, the more power they lost. They simply needed larger leaves so the transpiration pull would be great enough to overcome gravity and the lost power. Trees didn't need such a mechanism because of their woody trunks. Hence their leaves were almost always around the same size according to the species.

Sometimes it's amazing how insight works. You just idly look at something and meditate on its purpose, then everything simply clicks in place.

The Kefitzat He-Derekh

What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? Assuming that both are true, then by logic both should be destroyed. There is no possible resolution. However, this is improbable considering that, scientifically speaking, no force is truly unstoppable, and no object is completely immovable. It merely takes a sufficiently large force or massive object to shatter the assumptions of either.

Every system has a weakness, and all security has loopholes. The trick will therefore to be to identify those loopholes and thus derive the ideal solution. By finding the golden solution, one will have found the kefitzat he-derekh. The solution may not be perfect in that one side is satisfied and the other is dissatisfied, as that assumes a zero sum game, which is inherently flawed. There is always a loser.

By finding the kefitzat he-derekh, a compromise is reached by which all are satisfied to the sufficient extent that none are truly dissatisfied with their lot. Sometimes, the seeking of such a path will involve a leap of faith. Sifting through all possibilities and paths is impossible even for a prescient mortal, and finding the golden path can be done at times by taking a dive into the unknown, because the future is unknowable.

Girding the nature of the future will call for preparation of the Way, such that the golden path becomes a possibility. The weaknesses of the immovable rock can be exploited, the unstoppable force can be weakened, or either can be deflected such that they do not collide. The question, therefore, would be how this may be achieved...

The Disfigured Man

Sometimes we do things that we regret. Other times, we unconsciously react in ways that make us question our own self-worth. I had one such experience, when I saw this particularly disfigured man on my way home. This was no stranger to me, for I had seen him before. What made me question my integrity was my very visceral and automatic aversion to his appearance.

Now, this was no ordinary disfigurement. Something was wrong with his face, making the flesh appear to be sagging and thus dripping from his face. Imagine that the face was made of gelatinous putty, and someone dragged the whole mass downwards. That was how it looked.

Ordinarily, I would pride myself in not being affected by or discriminate against people on the grounds of their appearances. The strong, nearly physical reaction of shock I get whenever I see his face is something that bothers me greatly. Perhaps my conviction to be non-discriminatory was not that strong after all?

Logically, this would not automatically make me a bad person. After all, it really is something that is greatly out of the norms and thus really quite shocking. Moreover, I was able to get a grip and not flee in a panic after the initial shock. Still, it reminded me of just how I've come to accept what fits within the norms of appearance, and how such a deviation from the norm can be deeply disturbing.

A Question Of Ethics

Word is out that China has been using deceptive tactics in its opening to the Olympics. First was the CGI sequence in lieu of real footage of the giant footsteps, and the other was having a pretty girl stand in for the less attractive siren, while having the better singer voice the lyrics.

What is irksome is the suggestion that the West is somehow unreasonably picking on China. As the Chinese would have said themselves, there is no smoke without fire. This "West" bogeyman can hardly pick on something that does not exist. But the issue is less on these strange East/West politics than the question of ethics.

Make no mistake, the Olympics opening ceremony has always been a political event. It is meant to showcase the country as much as it is to herald the metaphorical giants of sports. The question, therefore, is whether it is ethical to gloss over some minor inadequacies by using illusory substitutes. This is akin to a film, where nobody is offended by special effects until they realize that they are there. Should the suspension of disbelief be shattered, the audience feels cheated. By revealing the Olympic smoke and mirrors, some feel understandably offended.

Still, this is a question of what is real, and thereby what is ethical. If a the singer was the less attractive one, she would have been a slight blemish on the show. In the interests of perfectionism, that would have been unacceptable. Yet in the interests of due credit and humanism, a less than perfect human specimen could still be showcased in the performance and none would begrudge that. People know that they are witnessing a performance space, yet are still seeing it as a human space due to the human presence presumably showcasing human prowess. The confusion of the two leads to the flawed assumption of wanting "real" within an illusory performance space. Was the singing real? They could have easily made a recording in a studio setting, then have her lip synch at the performance proper. Were the fireworks real? They actually happened, even though the footage was fabricated due to safety concerns. What is real? On one paw I think the question of ethics is moot because this is a performance and not a real talent contest. On the other paw, I can understand the human concerns that due credit is not given, and that they are witnessing a wizard of Oz illusion in what they assume to be real.

The Fallacy Of Sentimentality

Sentimentality is in itself a strange phenomenon. People can easily remain strongly attached to certain items, experiences or people despite the fact that the said matter has passed on and is possibly rotting in some dark morass in Mordor.

Taken positively, sentimentality can provide an anchor for morale while it is rationally impossible to feel good about a particular event. On the flip side, there’s a strong tendency to focus on the negative for some people. Ironically, giving them a limited good experience is even worse than providing none at all, for they have a tendency to cry because it’s over.

An event is an event because it is. By virtue of that absurd truism, there should be no reason to dwell on the past. If a good event happened, be happy about it. If it was nasty, learn from it to devise steps to prevent it from recurring.

Do We Need It?

The human mind is a veritable rationalization engine: It is perfectly capable of generating rationalizations out of just about any situation. Therein lies the exploit that is prevalent in materialistic societies: Fooling the mind into providing the profitable answer to Do We Need It?

It is always easier to justify the tangible. This new lens is faster, and I can use it to shoot moving stuff better. This blouse is the right side so I can wear it. Things that have a function can easily be rationally justified. There's a need for the function, so a tool is obtained to fulfill that function.

Then comes the intangibles. This blouse is "better" than the one I have. That lens is faster, and *may* increase my capabilities. The car is prettier. In a situation where the budget is tight, there is no room for what-if's. There's no case of I may use it, or that's intangibly "better" than the other item. In fact, this would be a very good tool to save one's expenses for far more valuable things in the long run. Given the incredible ability to rationalize anything, it is a losing battle when one tries to justify the intangibles: There's always an affirmative lurking somewhere. A better question would be Would I Use It A Lot? Marginal utility. That's the ticket.

Communalism

When people think of communalism, the spectre of communism and stifled individuality come to mind. Understandably, it is a very disturbing prospect, being forced to march in step with everyone else whether you like it or not.

However, communalism as understood by most will involve social communalism, whereby people are expected to adhere to a strict set of social rules and are afforded limited freedom of self-expression. I am considering more along the lines of communalism as diverse independent groups being discrete yet able to commune with one another.

Learning is the cornerstone of human survival, and communalism in learning is what sets humans aside from the animals that do not and thus do not learn from their predecessors. Independent isolated communities may have greater individuality, but do not share their knowledge. This encourages redundancy and inefficiency, as ideas generated by one community will not be shared with or learned by any other.

Strangely, society seems less concerned about such issues. Inefficiency is encouraged by guarding ideas and restricting their free flow. Worse yet, the myriad ideas forced to be generated through such regulations are also kept to their creators. Ideas are cheap, and it's really putting them to action that is priceless. How unusual, then, that people are made to march in line yet keep their ideas to themselves: the opposite of what would create a spontaneous, creative people.

Fascist Aesthetics

Fascist aesthetics are very much alive in the proceedings of large choreographed events, such as the Olympic opening ceremony and many nationalistic parades. This is not to say that countries sporting such features are naturally fascist or actually are, but that they subscribe to a certain ideal of presentation that is similar or identical to the fascist aesthetics.

What is often seen as features of fascist aesthetics include strict discipline and restraint, synchrony, tight choreography and a show of strength. Events like military marches, the unified sequences during the opening of the Olympics like the perfectly timed drumming and the typesetting sequence and of course the tightly choreographed nation day parades, and very likely with people sitting (or standing) in a relatively orderly manner to watch the whole event. This is of course in direct contrast to spontaneity encouraged in other countries, where parades are really more like carnivals where people dance on the streets and even mingle with the performers. Happy order against happy chaos.

The fascist aesthetic is undoubtedly strongly appealing. Few things can match the spectacle of such parades, with the stunningly unified show of strength as veritable platoons of civilians do everything in flawless synchronization. In comparison, a spontaneous parade would likely look much more like a rabble having a good time. There is certainly an appeal to the fascist aesthetic, which reminds all of the worrying tendency to appreciate the ideologies that come with a preference for such an aesthetic...

The Beijing Olympics

The Olympics opened with a bang today, with possibly the greatest choreographed performance in the history of the Olympics. I especially loved the sequence of the giant footsteps, whereby fireworks were fired into the air in the likeness of a giant's footprint. This is highly symbolic of the metaphorical titans who walk amongst us in the form of the Olympians.

Perhaps the footage was a little too smooth, and the commentator remarked that the sequence was in lieu of actual filming by a low-flying aircraft in the interests of public safety. While it can be assumed that China would want to save "face" to avoid having their camera plane crash on the day of the Olympics due to the dangerous flying required, I think it is also a relatively uncharacteristic concern for the welfare of its citizens by not risking their lives with the possibility of a plane crashing into someone's house and/or the crowds on the streets.

Other highlights include the perfect unison of drumming in one sequence, and I especially liked the running through the air before lighting the Olympic torch. That was very much something adapted from Chinese swordfighting movies.

On Campaigns

Commanding a campaign in a theater of war is very much a matter of resource management. Committing too many resources too early and thus squandering them may cripple the campaign later on. Yet it does not help to squander those same resources slightly later on in the campaign, and thus achieve the same result.

Through careful management of the resources, it may become possible to gather a climatic push towards the end, if one survives that long. Therefore, it is a careful balance to ensure that just enough resources are used at critical junctures, yet maintaining a sufficient reserve to hold off any future encounters.

Of course, hindsight is always 20/20, so one will invariably regret certain moves in retrospect. What is important is to learn from those moves, and to move swiftly. If one must retreat, one should do so in order to conserve resources. When one is facing a winning situation, one should push for victory as strongly as reasonably allowable.

Production Against Consumption

Producers of a product can have such astonishingly different views from consumers of the same. When I was working on a title, I was indeed focused on very different things from what the testers observed. This was surprising, since I am a consumer myself and I would likely know what I would look out for.

When I watched the making of Hannibal Rising, I was listening to what the director had to say about the various scenes. While I was paying attention to the details of the story, he was talking about all the tiny details of the scenes that I never noticed. Little textures like the bicycle strapped to a beaten up tank, for example. Of course, maybe I'm not a WWII buff, so I wouldn't know what to look out for. I'm sure that would be a welcome detail for the savvy audience.

Still, considering the level of detail the producers went into when making films, it makes me wonder exactly how many films had such detail pumped into production, only to be nixed by the overall bad writing and/or acting. The expense sunk into detailed scenes that wind up being cut in post-production is incredible, too. Perhaps that is why films have such incredible budgets, yet seem to display only a fraction of that budget on the big screen. That's because all the extra stuff has been cut out!

Intuition

Some people believe that intuition is a sort of mystical instinct that tells people things they otherwise wouldn't be able to find out. My take is similar to that of the psychologists: That intuition is a product of a split-second consolidation of one's previous experiences. For the purposes of this commentary, I will assume that the intuition in question is of the mundane variety and doesn't involve things like clairvoyance or other reputedly supernatural abilities.

Now, if intuition were truly a product of one's life experiences, it seems logical that a very experienced person would therefore have superior intuition. That is, what they intuit would become increasingly accurate. Unfortunately, attributing a supernatural root to intuition implies that it is an inborn ability that isn't usually honed. Therefore, someone with natural intuitiveness may be convinced of this, and not bother with going around to gain as much experience as possible. It is a danger that such an approach would reduce intuition to guesswork, or basically stunt the growth of the same due to lack of input for processing.

Hellboy 2

It's inevitable that these comic-based movies would have their sequels. There's such a wealth of material to draw from, after all. Anyway, I really do appreciate Hellyboy 2. Indeed, it is superior to Hellboy 1.

The first thing that drew me were the action sequences. I mean, what's a comic movie without its action? We're going to need to have different expectations given the context, after all. Anyway, this is the first time I've seen a convincing elven war dancer on the big screen. Prince Nuada could well pass for how I envisioned Drizzt Do'Urden to appear on television. Such speed and elegance of the movies that do not smack too much of stage swordplay. I like it that the moves were executed without hesitation.

Story wise, it's really quite standard Hellboy fare. World threatened, save the world. For some reason, that always happens. Don't people get tired that their world is always facing imminent destruction? I liked the chemistry between Liz and Red, though. That's how things should work: With lots of friction and preferably flames reaching to the skies.

Overall, I liked Hellboy 2 a lot. Not as much as I liked Batman (I do so love evil geniuses), but the grand action scenes and magical moments really brought the movie to life. 8/10

Batman: The Dark Knight

Batman was exceedingly good...and unexpectedly long. I think Heath Ledger's death may have had a part to play in this, since parts of the movie seemed quite tacked on. Attempting to condense two movies into one could possibly look like this.

Now, that aside, I am completely blown away by the portrayal of the Joker this time round. It is thoroughly refreshing to finally see the Joker as a psychotic evil genius. Under that loony clown image is the mind of a psychotherapist gone wrong. I especially liked that the Joker was out to prove a point: That, given the right stimuli, even the best of people can be brought down.

I'm sorry, Batman, but the Joker managed to steal the show again. Ledger put up a performance of the standard I've come to expect of a Johnny Depp show, and certainly breathed life into the character. The references to the relationship between Batman and the Joker were timely, too. It is well known that the two never had the intention to kill one another. Batman because he isn't a killer at heart. Joker because he does so love to torment the Bat. It is really a sort of strange attraction.

Of course, I felt the whole Harvey Dent sequence was tacked on, considering the show should've been about the Joker. Besides, there were precious few scenes where the two interacted, and I'd have to presume they were somehow related to Ledger's untimely demise.

I cannot help but give this movie a stellar 9.5/10. The length and apparently tacked on sequences kept it from perfection, but Ledger brought out the Joker I had been hoping to see for the longest time: Something beyond a selfish, mindless psychopath. Every Batman villian has a history and set of motivations, but much of canon focuses overly much on the action.

Human Rationality

If humans were truly rational, they'd likely have killed themselves ages ago. After all, life is intrinsically meaningless. In fact, the "meaning" in life is not only constructed, but also created out of nothing but intangible emotions. Like every other animal, humans live, eat, generate dung, reproduce and ultimately die. The cycle repeats itself. Over and over again.

Why one would continue playing this game seems to have no reason. The pattern repeats itself, with scarce change from one generation to the next. Indeed, there is little change even between tens of generations. Some would claim their faith in religion. Others claim faith in humans. Yet some will say they work for physical goods.

Note well, then, that all these are temporal. Religion will pass away. Humans are impermanent. Heck, one doesn't even own the goods once one's dead. It would therefore seem like the most obvious solution. If people didn't really like living life, the logical thing to do would be to simply lie down and die. Yet the majority choose not to do so. Clearly, there's irrationality at work here.

Long Distance Relationships

People do seem less than capable of maintaining long distance relationships the way they do localized ones. This could be a function of their animal natures, considering that it takes effort to maintain those relationships and keeping them simply delivers diminished returns compared to local ones.

I would imagine that the bonds formed between people in the immediate area would be stronger not only due to availability, but the level of interaction. I don't see how that works, but long distance relationships seem to be proof of this phenomenon. After all, most LDRs are actually established with the assumption/understanding that the other person in question will ultimately come back. That means the LDR is really hanging by that thread, and isn't supported primarily by the prospect of communicating with the person. After all, that could be achieved by simply getting a computer booted up and typing some words in.

Social Aspies

The relative social insensitivity of aspies may be beneficial in an adverse social situation. An aspie can escape to her own world, but an neurotypical would find herself shut out from her primary world. This would be undesirable to the extreme.

It is fairly common that people find themselves in adverse social situations. It could be a case of bullying, misunderstandings or any other possibility arising from the irrational social nature of humans. Understandably, it cannot be healthy to cut oneself off from all social contact, or even most social contact. Yet, allowing oneself to be overly involved with others is another potential recipe for disaster.

The E-1

I finally took the plunge and bought myself the Olympus E-1 with its "kit" 14-54mm lens. In a way, I feel sorta flipped out, since I already have a dSLR and the lens itself doesn't add that much to my capabilities. However, I've been itching to have a go at the E-1 for the longest time, along with its much touted kit lens. I feel really fortunate to have obtained both items at a very very fair price. In fact, I stand to make a rather tidy profit if I chose to offload them immediately.

Of course, that is unlikely to happen, considering that I already love the feel of this other body. Plus, I'm really quite attracted to the fact that it's splashproof, so I need not worry about my sweat spontaneously killing the circuitry. For the uninitiated, I do actually sweat a lot, so that's actually a big deal. Besides, the CCD ought to churn out some truly spectacular colors.

Right now, my main concern is not about how much money I spent (though it was a hefty sum, albeit akin to an investment) but how I will fairly utilize both bodies. The obvious answer would be to lug both around everywhere I go. Not terribly practical. An alternative would be to bring one out in the day (obviously the E-1 with the 11-22mm, other lenses with tripod) and the other in the night (E-510 with 14-54, or for otherwise lighter kits).

What really pleased me was that the E1 came not only with the kit lens, but everything else in the box and a spare original battery. That's hot because the BCM-1 charger is significantly faster (and actually bigger!) than the BCM-2 that comes with the newer cameras. No box set? Chances are no charger. The spare battery is always a perk, too.

Assassin's Creed

Assassin's Creed sure strikes me as a game built the ground up for console play. Perhaps it's to do with the really smooth roof running and Parkour action. Perhaps it's the fact that even the cutscenes are interactive to a certain extent, and even require situational awareness to make the most of them. Overall, AC is a great big open-world game that feels a lot larger than it really is. And that's a good thing, considering that's an efficient design approach. Of course, the game is far more action-oriented than similar open-world games like GTA IV. It also has a lot less depth than GTA IV. However, as an action-based distraction, this really is something.

I do wonder at whether there's a connection between AC and Dreamfall, though. The themes are similar, about the shifting between realities to some extent. Not to mention the hazy, glitchy real-life sequences that remind me of certain scenes from Dreamfall. Of course, gameplay wise, these two are worlds apart. It's just a matter of whether the game took ideas from Dreamfall, had shared developers or if it's really just a coincidence...

Appeasing The Living

If one is willing to think about it, the reality of performing the rites for the dead are often to appease the living, not the dead. Considering the relatively low rates of unrested spirits arising from having the improper (or no) last rites, it does seem that the dead are relatively unaffected by rites for the dead.

The living, however, do seem to be far more restive when it comes to these rites. The remarkable number of unrested spirits amongst the living for having the wrong (according to their views) rites performed will be quite indicative of the terrible effect these things can have on the living.

Of course, it is known that, psychologically, these rites are really ways for the living to cope with the passing of loved ones. Presumably loved ones, since I don't think most people really care exactly how the stranger living two blocks down is about to be greased for the afterlife.

Democrats? Republicans?

I was reading an article on a psychology magazine about the shift people have towards conservatism in the face of threat. Of course, countries are seldom constantly under threat. Wherein lies the bent towards conservatism?

Naturally, there will always be a mix of conservatives and liberals. It's just the way human diversity works. Some prefer to allow more fluidity in their decision making, others prefer comfortable rules. Nothing wrong with either. The bite comes when a country is in turmoil for some reason, and the people are looking out for a strong leader. If thousands of citizens are dead, the last thing they want to hear is someone saying...well...we should take a balanced view of this, and not be hasty. Not be hasty? Blasphemy! What we need right now is a retaliatory strike against the perpetrators! The first would likely be viewed as a poor leader, or at least a coward. The second would be seen as a strong leader, however ill-advised the move may be. Indeed, it does seem that times of crisis will cause a conservative bent.

However, troubles come when artificial crisis conditions are maintained to maintain support for conservatives. I think that is highly unethical. Who would admit to doing this, anyway? More importantly, need politicians be aware that they are attempting to do this to artificially garner support, or are all things fair in love, war and politics?

Censorship

When one thinks of movie censorship, one is wont to consider stodgy old men enforcing their horribly outdated beliefs upon the unsuspecting populace. By some quirk, they found themselves in a position to impose their ideologies, often to the chagrin to movie-goers like myself. In fact, I find it quite unethical to make me pay good money for a film, only to have a part of it cut out by the censorship board. Shouldn't I be reimbursed for the parts they didn't want me to see? Yeah...when I watch a movie without paying for it, it's theft. When they cut my movie while asking me to pay full price for it...hey that's the law.

Then again, most censors can only clip off some minutes from what would have been a say 1 1/2hr show. Arguably, those could be key parts and may even be highly amusing situations. All this pales in comparison to what directors do to get the film out to the silver screen. I'll bet they had to distill many many hours of footage to get to roughly the parts that they want the audience to see. (I'd be bored if I had to go through all that, so I'm actually grateful for it) And then they clip the few remaining hours yet further to satisfy the relative short attention spans of modern viewers. What we have as a result is a really trimmed piece of work.

Yes, the directors do indeed hack off far more than a film censor ever could. Of course, the censor could simply ban a particularly disturbing film. Me...I say keep a film intact (up the rating if necessary), or ban it. Clipping is just...blah.

Deindividuation?

It's amusing how the internet can serve as an equalizing force, diluting the perceived authority of people. What I found so far is that the moves people make online are more daring than they would when in person. Like, say, interaction with an important person. People are never intrinsically important. Their importance is a construct, granted by the will of the people around them for various reasons. I think it good that there is something out there that will help reduce that perceived authority, allowing them to be viewed by their own merit rather than some aura that may not exist out of the context of their station.

I especially like it that online communications make people more self-reflective. In trying to clarify their statements online, they are less likely to blurt out things that they otherwise would in person. More importantly, a written record exists of their statements, so they are unable to wheedle their way out of what they said on site.

Of course, all this is contingent on the captive audience. Should they be unwilling or unable to pay full attention to the exchanges, it is very easy for participants to get lost in conversation. Worse yet, deindividuation may lead to less than acceptable communication patterns...

Slaves To Laws

People who can only be disciplined by enforcement are little more than slaves. Obey my laws, or be whipped! It is an aspect of a free people, that they can learn to live with one another without the whip hanging over their heads. Of course, there are always penalties for flouting those laws. However, people who are free in the sense that they are not constrained by the laws but follow them freely are acting not because they fear penalties, but truly feel that the laws are right.

Yet it is unfortunate that people seem to bind themselves with the shackles of slavery in other forms. In the process of keeping their minds from law-breaking activities, they chain themselves with other things.

National Wholeness

Countries are generally pretty big nowadays. The national borders literally extend from the sight of one horizon and beyond. What does this achieve, however? Why do nations stay together? It is certainly not for the sake of efficiency. Understandably, smaller countries are easier to manage and can have greater efficiency of land use. They have fewer problems handling the diverse minorities that may become dissatisfied. Overall, it is often in the favor of a country to stay small.

Yet it seems that the expression of dominance over others is a very important theme in defining a nation. There are many examples of minorities wanting to break free, yet are violently prevented from doing so. Clearly, the nations fear that if they allowed one minority independence, the country would break up into its constituent dissatisfied minorities. Nice to stay together, except this seems to indicate that many countries are held together artificially, often with the threat of swift violence.

Perhaps it is exploitation, that nobody wants to surrender scarce resources. The gold mine is in the southern part of my land, and no way will I let minorities cede the area. Obviously, they are going to keep the gold for themselves, then they will come and dominate me. In the constant war of dominance and greed, there can be no efficiency. Ultimately, should the entire world come under a single leadership, they would still be little different from small independent states dealing with one another. Alternatively, a global hegemon may well have access to the sole military means to punish any detractors. Perhaps that is the miniature version we see in this day, the national hegemon that refuses to give any quarter...

Identity

Egoism is a trait often frowned upon by polite society. Humans are social creatures to the extent that even their identities are often created in relation to their chosen heroes. These heroes may be musicians, national leaders, religious figures. You name it. They'd follow it. Even in the formative teenage years, there is often a drive to become a part of something. Pacts are made between individuals. The emphasis here is on the group.

I wonder, though, since this all seems rather bizarre to me. Targets are set, like say this kid wants to grow up to be as great as Spiderman. Unrealistic, perhaps, but an ambition nonetheless. I guess I am rather more egoistic. Identity for me is something I'd draw from myself, not other people. Should my ambition be to strive for greatness, it will not be to be as great as Spiderman, but greater than myself. It will be an endless quest for refinement whereby the pinnacle of achievement shall only be acknowledged when I am satisfied by it.

This may sound strange or even unacceptable by those more socially-inclined. Still, I figure it better to refine oneself as an individual before one can contribute to a group. It sure beats diddling as a faceless member of the masses, feeling the false sense of wholeness through following everything else. Worse yet, that individual may become a leech, reliant on the shine of the masses and unwilling to improve oneself to contribute to that chosen group. If that isn't egoistic selfishness, I don't know what is.

Get Smart

Get Smart is a seriously funny show. It really is. I fear I am greatly in favor of shows that display non-crude slapstick humor. Anyway, yes, I do think Get Smart was good. heh.

One would never have thought that a spy agency thwarting a nucular strike would be this much fun. Here, we have a bumbling agent being let into the position he's been yearning for...for like pretty much all his professional existence. Pairs up with this seriously hot veteran agent, and wind up being a grand dynamic duo to prevent a nucular disaster by a nasty terrorist organization.

It's nice, how they reflected the jock/geek rivalry even in the agency. It's even better how they contrasted the academic prowess of dear Smart with the practical experience of Agent 99. Naturally, I'd be rooting for the academic =p And 99's hawwtness. Unfortunately, I am hardly well positioned to evaluate this show in relation to the 1965 series.

Overall I'd say this was a barrel of laughs, and I appreciate that even the jokes laced with innuendo were far from standard potty humor. That really made my day, alongside the spoofs of James Bond'esque gadgetry. I'd say...7.5/10?

Laws And People

There are times when I wonder at the laws. In a democracy, people elect their representatives. In any society, the laws are designed by the peoples' representatives to protect the peoples' interests. Therein lies a conflict of interest. The representatives may not necessarily know what the people truly want. As for the people, what they want may not necessarily be in their best interests.

Who watches the watchman, then? What is there to keep the representatives from deliberately creating laws in their own interests rather than that of the people? Yet it is clear that, however well-written a law can be, it's enforcement is really up to the will of the people. Even in the places where there are laws against discrimination, minority races still face difficulties finding jobs.
If there is a bias against the minorities, there is precious little that legislators can do.

Sex And The City

Some say it's the classic chick flick. This is a show devoid of your average Hollywood guns and violence. Me? I would agree. Unfortunately, I did not watch the Sex and the City series just yet, so I regret that many of the references will be lost on me. What fascinated me about the show, however, was the reverse product placements. Usually, product placements are done in a favourable light. In this case, an iPhone and a particular book were discarded offhand. I especially liked that.

Apart from the amusing small things, I was somewhat disappointed to find that the story was overly dramatized. I mean, sure, Carrie and Big may have some issues. However, the way they were put on an emotional roller-coaster just seemed to stretch the limits of the suspension of disbelief. To avoid providing spoilers, all I can say is that it was nearly as unbelievable as the overblown situations in Desperate Housewives.

Also, the happy ending was really quite cliched. In fact, I wouldn't say that the story as a whole was particularly original at all. I guess the real issue is that I did not feel like I learned any life lessons from the show. In a good chick flick, I've come to expect some deeper meaning than a dramatization over the theme of love. For that...I guess the show gets 7/10.

Odin

I saw a cat today. This cat I will remember for a long time. The cat had a single eye. His right eye was missing. In its place was an empty socket that was still weeping. Clearly, the cat had been attacked or abused. On closer inspection, the lack of injuries on the rest of the cat led me to believe it was abuse...by a human. The cat gave me a forlorn look, as if asking me what I was looking at. Well, for that I named him Odin. Odin, too, had a missing right eye, which he sacrificed for the sake of knowledge. Like Odin, he did strike me as a sort of trickster, and yeah, it was that look. I'll never forget that look.

The Fallen Hood

There was the most horrendous noise last night. It started off sounding like something snapping, twice, followed by an almighty crash. Naturally, the din woke the entire household. Mom was worrying that dad fell (a tad loud, even for him), I was grumpy at being awoken and dad just had to check it out. It turns out that our cooker hood had fallen.

Now, apart from the fact that it was pretty darned fortunate that nobody was hurt in the incident apart from the safety glass wok cover, I was musing at the cause of the mishap. Dad pointed out that the whole heavy rig was supported by two nails. Now that's some significant weight being put on two thin pieces of steel. By the looks of them, I wager they rusted through, causing the material to give way. Shoddy workmanship, undoubtedly. Nearly as bad as having a security keypad secured to the wall with double sided tape.

I did pity the wok cover, though. It was an innocent caught in the incident, and was sacrificed as a result. What I really liked was the sound of the safety glass still cracking and falling bit by bit, since the trauma was so recent. Thankfully, there were no dangerous glass shards left lying around. That would be quite unacceptable in a kitchen. Anyway, shoddy workmanship? Just say no, bub.

Conservatives

Conservatives can have the darnedest policies. I was reading about an anti-HIV campaign. Don't get me wrong, 'coz I think these are worthy efforts that will save lots of lives and prevent unnecessary suffering. However, despite their knowledge of the reality of HIV infections within the drug-user and gay communities, the authorities decided to leave the gays out of it.

Now, I understand that their national policies are probably against gays and all that, but why would a government deny their own people education in such a critical area? And that's especially since it's a high risk community that may spread disease beyond itself if the problem was allowed to go unchecked? In a situation like that, I think the people would be quite pissed that they are exposed to the risk of contracting a known fatal infection due to the inaction of their conservative leaders.

Egalitarian Ideologies

Until recently, it was probably impractical for egalitarian ideologies to be effected in most societies. Take for example the issue of equality of women. In the days of feudalism, a society where a woman was treated equal to a man (and thereby being made to do things like engage in warfare) would probably result in the society being whittled down and destroyed in an environment of total war. After all, keeping the population up is the name of the game in ancient feudal warfare, and that is something egalitarian societies may not be proficient at.

Later on, the advent of more advanced societies may have had the potential for increasing egalitarianism. This was not to be, unfortunately, given the relative efficiency of division of labour. Men specializing in "men's work" (whatever that is) and vice versa would probably have resulted in a society where people knew what they were meant to do, and could do it regularly, predictably and with minimal fuss. All this came before mass media, however, and doctrine was still a good way to ensure that things worked.

Today, we have the mass media. We have women being perfectly capable of performing men's work and vice versa. Why? The advent of machines should have taken the burden of physical labour from people in industrialized societies. With machines doing the work of dozens of men, there is no excuse for physical strength determining efficacy. With most work (and warfare) being done at the touch of a button(s), there is actually an advantage women have over men: superior fine manual dexterity and greater stamina. With the advent of formula milk, men can even take over some (if not all) nursing duties. So...with all of this, is it not intellectual laziness that women not learn to be competitive, and men not learn to be nurturing?