Zen Shooting

Shooting is a zen thing. It is the moment of unity between shooter, camera and subject. At that point, the shutter speed, aperture and iso are at the precise point of balance, creating an...AWFUL exposure. And then it all falls apart. The composition looks neither here nor there, the exposure is terrible and the colors just seem off.

This would be a good time to put the third eye to use, being able to "see" the shot before any buttons are pressed. It is only then, along with the correct settings, that everything can fall into place at the moment of the shot. It is not a matter of the camera (assuming it isn't damaged), its film/sensor or anything else...but the trigger finger and the right moment.

Power Over

There are many forms of power extant in society. One of the most visible types of power is power over. That is, a person(s) of power holds sway over those possessed of a lesser amount of that power.

This situation manifests itself in numerous ways. A common way would be in a kidnapping. The kidnappers have power over those they intend to extort money from. The origin of this example of power over is likely from the affection the people feel for the kidnapped. They are unwilling to allow or feel responsible for any harm befalling the kidnapped. It is precisely this attachment that keeps the kidnappers in a position of power.

Likewise, in most systems where there are people in "power", that form of power is often power over as well. A government that legitimizes its position through economic success or national stability will have power over the people by threatening them with the loss of their wealth and/or personal security if the people do not cooperate with them. A constant fear of terrorist attacks could cause people to be more willing to sacrifice their personal freedoms, for one. One should thus always be wary of anyone in power exercising power over, lest that power be abused.

Racism

The specter of racism is very real...and very insidious. Apart from dedicated self-admitted racists, most would deny being racist. In fact, they are quite likely to believe that they aren't either. Of course, taking into account the human propensity towards self-deception, this belief must be taken with a pinch of salt.

For example, a person may feel that a certain ethnic group is "inborn" with certain traits. Common accusations include laziness, propensity to violence, use of black magics, etc etc. At an intellectual level, having such inexplicable beliefs is completely unacceptable. After all, most people would not want to be thought of or think themselves racist.

Therein lies the problem: Humans have an incredible ability to see patterns where there is none. Hence we can have people seeing a certain ethnic group acting lazy one out of a hundred times and take it as canon, while rejecting the ninety nine other times the people from that ethnic group worked decently. Worse yet, the human mind appears intuitively incapable of comprehending probability (explaining the popularity of gambling, for example). By a combination of these factors, the human will have convinced herself that a certain ethnic group is possessed of a general poor character. And then we throw in the other irrational, probability-handicapped humans who think the same way...

Illogical Logic

Humans are curiously illogical. The slightest detail can conjure a whole slew of arbitrary conclusions. For example, the absence of suds in washing powder can make some imagine that the powder is not doing its job, despite the fact that stains are being effectively removed.

However, this apparent illogic is only so in relation to Age of Reason logic. By jumping to conclusions and strongly holding them, the human is by definition illogical especially when refusing to accept facts even in the face of evidence.

It would be interesting to consider how this illogic could have become so predominant amongst humans to the extent that most would dismiss offhand the in depth consideration of philosophies and ideals. (We shall ignore the fact that this is in and of itself a philosophy)

In times of greater scarcity, the ability to make snap decisions would very likely draw the line between survival and a very ugly death. If we go by the tenets of Darwinism, it would appear to be useful that humans can barely perceive things, decide whether they are worth considering, then discard them offhand to focus on more important things.

In most middle class urban existences, the consideration of things beyond “mere” survival (like logical thought, for example) would be more useful for survival in society. Despite this, the application of logical thought is still cumbersome and quite contrary to the way humans have been for the longest time: “Modern” life as is understood nowadays is merely a social construct dominated by the artificiality of “logic”.

The higher logic of philosophy and ideals is in and of itself of little merit in a harsher and more carnal existence. An example would be say…(to quote a cliché) living in a jungle. Therefore, the offhand rejection of Enlightenment-era logic is in and of itself logical – in the context of bare survival. Such is merely an alternative form of logic that is currently frowned upon if allowed to dominate one’s existence.

The Superficiality Of Language

Some may claim that consumerism is remarkably superficial. For example, buying a stylish sports car is purported to “say” something about the driver/owner. It may be true, but all this is merely the perception of the beholder. If I associate sports cars with yuppies, I would readily assume that sports car owner = yuppie.

Still, it must be noted that the very vocabulary from which I draw the term “yuppie” is really from the language of my culture - both spoken and unspoken. Humans have created multiple levels of nonverbal communication to compensate for their relative inability to read others’ minds.

Unfortunately, these nonverbal ways to communicate have led to rather unfortunate consequences for those who do not understand them. I could “accidentally” select a vehicle that “says” all the wrong things about me, and be totally clueless about it (assuming that I couldn’t read minds or nonverbal communications, of course). Conversely, I could simply deliberately choose my wardrobe to deceive others about my “true” nature.

Language is actually meant to be superficial: a word means only what it means (to facilitate ease of communication). It is really human perceptions and consensus that leads to words developing arcane and obscure connotations. If anything is superficial, it is the vocabulary set up within a culture to communicate ideas related to consumerism. One may think that an item’s mere appearance influenced the buying decision and thus the buyer must be superficial. One who thinks that way may be guilty of being superficial, too, by demonstrating a possible ignorance of the deeper symbolism of the item. To be sure, much of this stems from the negative connotations of the word “superficial”…

Strange Censorship

Ok, I'm really behind time on this gripe, but better late than pregnant...er...never. Anyway, this is about that horrendous "reality" show There's Something About Miriam. In fact, I feel it's wrong on so many levels that it's amazing the show wasn't banned outright. Less offensive shows have been banned on the grounds that they were affronts to human dignity.

Down to the gripe: For one, the show is built entirely on deception. The contestants were deceived into believing that they were going for a natal female rather than a transsexual woman. Now, this is less about the woman/not-woman issue than that they were led to believe, by implication and common expectation than it is about how the show has utter disregard for the sensitivities of the contestants. For example, some of them may have strong ideological or religious beliefs against dating a transsexual. It's sort of like telling someone that they're voting Democrat when it's really a Republican.

Then we have the issue of Miriam saying that she is "not a woman". This self-admission...by a transsexual, no less...is likely to cement public opinion that transsexual females are not women. They are born-guy creatures that will always be guys in one way or another. This may be a biological fact, but is hardly healthy for those trying to assimilate into society to have normal lives.

Sad to say, Miriam was hardly the prime example of an average woman. Though some note that she is somewhat of a bimbo, I believe this is at least in part attributed to how she seems not to be a native English speaker. By choosing an obviously foreign woman who is apparently not very articulate, it creates negative stereotypes of both foreigners (specifically Mexicans) and transsexual women. For all I know, she did not literally mean "I am not a woman" so much as "I was born male". That is, she regards herself as female, but acknowledges the fact that she wasn't born so.

In fact, there may be a possibility that this travesty was allowed primarily because it involved a "not-real" woman rather than a real one. Any other premise involving a non-transsexual would be a clearly recognizable affront to human dignity. If it were a woman, it'd probably be sexual harassment at least. If it were a HIV-positive person, it would be downright illegal not to reveal it till the end.

Worse yet were the guffaws of the other contestants as the winner got the "prize". Besides seeming like a big mean schoolyard prank, it also implies that a guy being "fooled" into dating a transsexual is really a big joke (i.e. any sane guy would certainly not consider such a proposition). Were he not already averse to the idea, such concerted mockery would certainly put him off.

The implication of all this is awful if true: Transsexuals are simply not treated as being deserving of the dignity afforded every other good non-transsexual citizen. Such a precedent means one can create a similar show spitting on the dignity of at least one person on national TV...and get away censorship-free.

Clinton: An Issue Of Gender

It is frightening how so many women are highly critical of Hillary Clinton potentially popping into the White House. I suppose it is not so much of a problem if there is a legitimate gripe, such as obvious potential to be an awful commander in chief or something. What I seem to be getting is rather a lot more of inexplicable I-don't-like-her or she's-so-arrogant. Opinions like these tend to raise alarm bells, signaling the possibility that it really is that old ugly harsh judgment of women cropping up again.

For some reason, women are the harshest critics of other women, and it seems to be quite the case here, too. Something that is deemed appropriate (ambition) in men is inappropriate (power-hungry) in women. This double standard could well be masking some other deeper motivation for women to undermine other women. If there ever was a fine example of divide and conquer, in-fighting between women would be shiny indeed.

Of course, I would likely stand by the feminists who claim that Clinton is just another bastion of patriarchy in a female shell. If people really stop to consider, men and women are equally responsible for maintaining the stranglehold of patriarchy. I fail to understand how a full half of society could be forced to unwillingly accept a yoke like patriarchy. There has to be some complicity here.

Then again, all this aside, I believe national leadership should be evaluated according to the merits of the candidates. That is, things that do not intrinsically affect candidate performance like race, gender and religion should really be put aside when making this important decision. Given the history of human irrationality, my hopes are not really up. But I do hope to see a woman in the White House for a change nonetheless.

Feedback Loop: A Nagging Hypothesis

The mind has an interesting tendency to ignore things that are deemed unimportant. For example, if the toilet smells and it is unimportant (does not cause any perceptible harm), the smell is screened out by the mind.

Now, there is also a feedback loop. If the toilet smell is deemed important, the mind feeds back the sense without causing it to be screened out. It is very much akin to a doctor’s needle that feels far more intense when you’re paying attention to it.

We are all familiar with the concept of nagging. It occurs when a person figures that something is important and repeatedly relates the concept of that important something to another person. Naturally, nagging only occurs when the other party does not regard that something as important, or that something would have been removed in the first place.

So this is where it all gets together. Let’s assume that the situation in question is a toilet that smells. In this hypothetical situation, the woman notices the smell just as well as the man. Both notice it at this point. We will assume that the woman deems the smell important and the man does not. After some time, the woman is nagging about the smell, and the man gets very much angry about the nagging. What happened?

Initially, both noticed the smell. However, the man finds it unimportant and screens the sense out. He has effectively ignored the smell. The woman finds it important, however. This is probably because of social factors. The toilet is probably a domestic unit and belongs in the domestic sphere that women traditionally dominate. Moreover, keeping the household healthy is important to her. Bad toilet smells could indicate unclean surroundings that may spread disease. Finally, it is socially rewarding for a woman to be observant (you’ll understand this part if you are a woman)

Given the perceived importance of the smell, the woman’s mind does not let her ignore it. Think of this as a doctor’s needle…multiplied every time the woman is reminded of the smell. When the feeling overflows, there is an urge to relate this to another person: the hapless man. Understandably, the man initially accepts this, but does nothing about it because he feels it is unimportant. Later on, with repeated reminders, he feels frustrated because he is being constantly reminded about something he effectively does not notice anymore. It seems like much ado about nothing! With the differences in perception, the woman winds up having to get rid of the smell…and put another black mark on the man’s sordid character.

Now, let’s extrapolate this to my room. Here are the facts: It is messy. Mom feels that the mess is somehow important. I do not stay in the house much (there’s school and stuff). Mom stays in the house a whole lot more. Guess who gets more frustrated about the situation? =p

Pokemon!

Pokemon Pearl for DS is probably one of those dated games that persist to the present day. However, from a game mechanics point of view, it is actually quite remarkable. Pokemon has a healthy number of the hallmarks of a successful game. It has a persistent game world in that players can trade their pokemon both in the card game and online. It generates itself by having invisible and random enemy spawn points that spew random enemies (not necessarily a good game design). It has an apparently large game world that houses lots of inhabitants. More importantly, there are a huge variety of playable pokemon that can be captured. Even the interface is quite dynamic for something this dated.

What would keep most from appreciating it, though would probably be its skin. For one, it is probably targeted at a younger audience and I know a good number of people who would not be caught dead playing it precisely because of that reason. Besides, those who are used to "meaningful" (read: more glitz, blood and gore) gameplay would bemoan the repetitiveness of the combat sequences. I, for one, am more than a bit peeved that there is no way to get through them quicker so I can spend more time exploring.

That aside, there really is a remarkable amount of content in the game. There are huge numbers of pokemon to be seen/captured and each one is somewhat different from the others. (Of course, this is not to evaluate it from a balance point of view, since the game is clearly heavily weighted towards certain pokemon.) Besides the sprites and their supporting accessories, there are numerous small embellishments that pop out through gameplay. We have the underground levels, the little widgets that you collect in your adventures, and hidden items to name a few.

The more (self-perceived) mature audience may view the overall game world as predictable, but it is undeniable that there is much to see in the game world...assuming one actually has the patience to go over all of it.

Exams And Life

Examinations are a like a very badly (or well) designed game. It has a set of fixed rules that are not initially apparent to the student. In fact, the rules are never made known to or figured out by a good number of students. The deal breaker, of course, is that once done, there is no way to undo what one did (or did not) in the exam. Realistic? Perhaps. Fun? Probably not.

Of course, some have likened this phenomenon to that of life. Life is presumably fun, or a good majority of living creatures would have committed suicide because there was no real reason to live on. Some may argue that they have a sense of self-preservation or a fear of death and thus are not quite likely to want themselves dead. I would disagree, since they have obviously deemed it not-fun to actually off themselves. I believe a good number would disagree as well, but they're currently pushing up the daisies and are unavailable for comment.

Back to exams, the general consensus is that they are NOT fun. This is likely because they are either too easy (I get an A every time!) or too hard (I can never get that A!). In pattern theory, this would mean that a good number of students have failed to learn the pattern of exams (the holy grail formula that gets you A's every time). Whose fault is it? Obviously academia. They are the ones who grade the papers in the first place.

Look a little deeper, and the source of not-fun is quite likely the value system of the individual students. The value system itself, of course, can be influenced by a number of factors, not the least of which society. It is probable that the lack of fun is not so much from not getting A's...but from not being able to enjoy the exam experience itself. By being unable to understand the pattern for A's, or to grok the system itself, the students cannot find such an experience fun. All this, however, does nothing to improve the exam's rating as one of the most horrible games ever invented (assuming that games are meant to be fun).

Up That ISO!

This is just a reminder to self: Up that ISO! I was at a family gathering today and as usual, the indoor conditions were somewhat dim. Now, it may be an admirable effort to try to keep the camera steady so shake doesn't blur the shots, but it is darned silly to waste moments by allowing the subject to blur them by moving! Of course, this was more of a covert/candid operation considering that my relatives didn't really like to be photographed and mom basically commissioned the hit. Anyway yeah. ISO 800! Go for it!