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.