The Lot In Life

It seems that many believe in the concept of having a "lot" in life. By lot meaning they're somewhat bound to have a sort of social status, for example, and will never transcend that level no matter how hard they try. Well I say hogwash. Of course they never would, if they never tried, since they already figured it was hopeless to begin with! Quite the self-fulfilling prophecy.

Sometimes I think the regulation of self-esteem, and concept of a lot in life are methods of social control designed specifically to convince people that they should not aspire to advance far beyond their assigned station in life. If true, it is a well-established method to maintain social order by artificially encouraging the stagnation of the lower social classes.

Either way, the belief is unacceptable, since it not only prevents people from becoming the best that they can be, but also stunts the growths of societies that hold this mistaken belief. There is no limit to what people can achieve when they set their minds to it, and failure is an acceptable outcome when even one's best efforts prove insufficient. Still, one will never know the possibilities open to oneself without first trying, and if one first fails, one will not know future success if one does not get up and try yet again.

Friends

Friends. It is a frightening word. The very concept is disturbing because being a friend is a commitment that is not to be taken lightly. Yet just about everyone bandies the term at the drop of a hat, with no concern for what friendship truly means. This is creating a great mass of meaningless links, and the very dangerous illusion of social happiness.

There are different grades of friend, ranging from an acquaintance to a chatty buddy to someone who would go through hell itself with the one they befriended. The last one is of the highest quality, and exceedingly rare. Realistically, most friends will never be like that. However, the minimum standard I would hold a friend to is the willingness to hang on even when one is faced with difficulties.

It is easier conceptualized than realized, seeing as most are still dominated by their sense of self-preservation, and that is further bolstered by the self-interest that is common in modern society. Chances are, many "friends" will fade into the woodwork at the whiff of trouble, and are less than hesitant to truly risk some of their happiness to preserve their ally. With friends like those, who needs enemies? It's no wonder that it's advocated that people make friends with everyone: They're going to get stabbed in the back anyway, so they might as well be socially appealing before their downfall.

The Couple

The belief that a couple is the sum of two halves is rather misleading, whatever the intentions of whoever it was that created the concept. In fact, it is dangerous, when two incomplete individuals enter a relationship, expecting the other to make up for the shortcomings of the other. Perhaps that is why so many break up, if they were indeed built on such faulty foundations.

I think maturity is important for both people, and by my measure that means both will have to be fully realized individuals, or at least mostly fully realized. By being thus, both should have relative security in who they are, and at least the awareness and willpower to manage the insecurities that arise. Thus, the couple is not a sum of two halves, but the union of two wholes that turns out to be greater than the sum.

High standards, perhaps. However, people charging in with an eagerness to experience a sort of completion through forming a relationship are mostly doomed to failure. Perhaps it is possible by luck, but luck can only go so far. It is not the relationship that completes, but the ability of both parties to shore up one another during the down periods, and the maturity to manage disagreements without harboring insecurities they are unaware of. To me, that is the essence of an enduring couple, and the way they can get on in life strengthening one another without either becoming a drag in the long term.

With A Wide

The wide angle lens is perhaps my most neglected glass so far. Frankly, I've never really found a good reason to use it to get everything into a shot. In fact, that turned out to be one of the worst ever ideas I've had since everything basically got clumped into an amorphous blob that made little sense and had virtually no holding power.

And then I rediscovered the principle of getting closer. Most of the time, that's something I would only do with a macro lens. However, experimenting with that on a wide produced rather good results. In fact, the principle applied pretty well since getting close to a large building was very much similar to doing so with a smaller object with a macro lens.

After which, I also rediscovered the use of a polarizer, which significantly added to the vibrancy of the colors in the shots. The polarizer is probably one of the filters that has an effect which is quite impossible to replicate reliably in post processing. Anyhoo...this is a reminder to think globally, and experiment moar. MOAR!

Rational Correctness

Rationality seems to be popularly confused with correctness. While, undoubtedly, rational thoughts can be correct, not all rational choices are necessarily correct. In fact, one can be perfectly rational and completely wrong at the same time.

The problem seems to come from the assumption that people cannot be perfectly rational without access to perfect information. This seems rather unusual, seeing as the level of information should have little bearing on the procedure of a thought process, though it will undoubtedly affect the content and outcome.

This leads to the matter of choice, where choices are often seen as "bad" on hindsight, quite invariably due to the unavailability of information at the time of that decision. Still, chances are that the choice made at the time was due to a cost-benefit analysis at the point of time, and was really quite rational in nature. Unfortunately, it proved non-beneficial when the alternative turned out to be far better...

On Superstition

It seems that superstition is not merely a factor of human irrationality, though a large proportion of it is. Superstition appears to be primarily a result of the human inability to intuitively comprehend probabilities, problems separating causality from correlation and the human ability to learn from experience.

The curious result of this is the learning that particular actions cause low probability events to happen. Say for example the waving of a tree branch was quickly followed by rainfall during a drought. Waving it again at a time in the future caused similar rainfall in a drought. Sold! Clearly, the probability of rainfall during a drought...twice over...is quite small. Learning occurs, creating an association between branch waving and rainfall.

Unfortunately, there was no way to verify that the correlation was actually causality. To do so would require lots of branch waving at random times during a drought and actually checking whether it would reliably cause rainfall. In fact, even then the causality would be tenuous unless the exact mechanism of rainfall causation could be established. Superstition thus serves as a handy shortcut in "comprehending" such matters, then getting on with life. This is not to say that superstition is necessarily good, or even useful, but it is just a human tendency given the somewhat inadequate nature of the human mind.

The Survival Instinct

There has been something that's nagging me lately, and that's whether there really is such a thing as a survival instinct. With that being the urge to stay alive even when one consciously wishes for death. Sure, there's a whole school of thought revolving around the concept, and many people swear that it exists. However, I'm still skeptical whether it's an "instinct" or something people were conditioned to fear. After all, everyone's taught to fear death and most already fear the unknown.

Unfortunately, it really is frightfully hard to put this to the test. I would very much like to personally disprove it, but the only way for me to prove a lack of fear of death is to actually off myself and note what things are like just beyond the point of no return. By definition, that also means I would hardly be in a position to record my findings.

To perform the test, one would have to be dying by inches over a reasonably long period of time such that one can feel oneself dying and be fully able to panic about it. Of course, the absence of such a panic in the face of willful self-destruction would be quite a compelling proof that the survival instinct really isn't.

I guess some things are just really difficult to test, and it would probably be unethical to put others up to it as well. Still, it irks me to no end that people unquestioningly believe in the survival instinct regardless whether it is actually proven. Sure, some may claim that the fact that most people have not killed themselves is definitive proof that there is a survival instinct, but then again it sounds uncomfortably close to imbecilic bravado to have to off oneself just to prove a point. It's very much like a dare, only that the person who has the last laugh is the one who was not silly enough to allow oneself to be drawn into it. I mean hey...bowing to this one dare pretty much precludes one from trying out every other life-threatening dare one may encounter in future. What a waste.

God's Omnipotence

The philosophical question about whether God can create a stone so heavy that She can't lift it seems rather simple at first. It's an omnipotence paradox. Being unable to create that stone, or being unable to lift said stone will be taken as a sign that God isn't really omnipotent.

That does not seem terribly satisfactory to arrive at a stalemate this way. A logical approach would be to consider the assumptions behind the nature of omnipotence and creation. Omnipotence is assumed to be the pinnacle of can-do, meaning that God should hypothetically be able to do anything. Including creating a stone that cannot be lifted. Well, that seems fair enough. Omnipotence in creation implies that.

However, the assumption also means that it is possible for God to create another God that is equally omnipotent. Since it is by definition impossible for omnipotence to be superseded by something greater, I think it is pointless to ask whether God can create a greater God. Hence the question on the limitations of creation.

If creation were limitless, there would be no question about whether the stone could be created. It probably could be. Yet, creating a stone with an attribute (weight) that exceeds another (God's strength) is akin to the case of creating an even more omnipotent God (i.e. one that is greater than God Herself). The assumption that the upper limit of creation is omnipotence itself is also an assumption of creation's limit.

I figure that the absence of an equivalent omnipotent God (that's a monotheist assumption, after all) means that either creation is limited to creating lesser beings (while not implying God's inability, as creation does not define God) or that God simply did not bother with that exercise. Certainty in such matters does seem like hubris, since there can only be uncertainty with regards to the motivations of divine beings.

If we were to consider creation capable of creating a stone that is incredibly heavy, that weight would have to be precisely balanced with God's ability to lift it. In which case the stone will be precisely halfway between being lifted, and sitting on the ground.

Ponyo On A Cliff By The Sea

One word to describe Ponyo: Trippy. Ponyo is one trippy animation, and don't you forget that. It's almost as if Miyazaki ordered his creative team to let their imaginations run wild. Ponyo is somewhat random, strange and somewhat disjointed enough to give the logically-minded a brain fart, yet is able to be cheerful and pleasing at the same time.

Ponyo seems somewhat different from Miyazaki's usual environmentalist themes, since Ponyo is a celebration of the might of the ocean, and a little introduction to what's been lost in the oceans even before the advent of humans. As the human world is slowly overcome by the ocean due to Ponyo's unleashing of strange and powerful forces in the pursuit of humanity and true love, the creatures previously known only as fossils reappeared. They were even given a little introduction by the characters.

I think Ponyo is an interesting mix between the Little Mermaid, with a spot of Howl's Moving Castle, Totoro, Grave of the Fireflies, along with a touch of Ghibli'esque art. In fact, the art is slightly unusual in the extensive use of color pencils in the backdrops. As is typical in the fantasy-themed Ghibli films, the changes in the peoples' environments and the random strangeness of unusual events seems to be taken pretty well by the others. The lack of tragedy and true villians also leaves the film up to interpretation as to its meaning and intention.

Overall, I'd say this film was an audiovisual feast, with Joe Hisaishi behind the music and Miyazaki at the helm again. The film does not fail to disappoint, and has a nice healthy 9/10.

As a side note, Fujimoto called Ponyo "Brunhilde", which also happens to be the name of the valkyrie that was trapped in an eternal sleep within a ring of fire till a suitable human was brave enough to enter the said ring and thus rescue her...

Red Cliff 2

I usually have a policy against watching Chinese films. Unlike Japanese stuff, I really don't get Chinese films most of the time. But then again, I heard that Red Cliff 2 speaks the international language of violence pretty well, so I figured I might as well watch it.

As expected, Red Cliff 2 was perfectly epic. The Chinese sure do have enough people lying around to fill the role of extras. I always did hope to see some truly epic battles on screen, with loads of extras and explosions and such. Guess it delivered. The sheer brutality of siege warfare was successfully brought to the big screen, imo.

That aside, I was more than mildly disappointed at the historical inaccuracy of the depiction of said combat. I mean...the testudo hardly seemed like a Chinese battle tactic. Moreover, there were some major inaccuracies in the way Zhugeliang was portrayed (he looked uncomfortably similar to Orlando Bloom for some odd reason. Poor Takeshi Kaneshiro!) given his lack of flair. Of course, I did not seriously expect historical inaccuracy. 300 was inaccurate, too, to be fair.

Overall, I figure the film would get 8/10. Probably strongly influenced by the sufficiently brutal battle scenes.

Ze Moon

I finally got down to using my 500mm Pentacon lens to have a shot at the moon. Now there's an improvement over the Olympus 70-300mm, if only because the lens is much longer and capable of getting more details off the lunar surface by virtue of that alone. Currently, I need a new method of post processing to reduce the noise output while maintaining the ability to enhance details on the image. Oh, and perhaps to shoot on a clearer day so there isn't any haze out there to cut some details out. Yup.

Jerky's Gone

I checked downstairs this morning, and someone took Jerky away. Even the water dishes and my makeshift bed's been cleared. Now, I have no idea if it was the SPCA, some kind neighbor or someone else, but I'm sure Jerky will be in a better position than he was sleeping amongst the remains of the food we've been trying to get him to eat. Maybe he'll be put down, made into jerky or perhaps a vet will make him well again.

It's been nice knowing you, Jerky, even though it was for a few days. Perhaps this is something like what one feels when losing a pet. I lost one before, and under different circumstances, but I'm sure she's right fine wherever she is here and now.

Feeding Jerky

I went down to get some premium wet cat food for Jerky today. I warmed the tin before dishing it out. It's really telling when doing that around a domestic cat, seeing as how he responded immediately to the familiar sound of a tab being pulled on a tin of wet food. Unfortunately he was too feeble to do more than lick at the lump of tuna and whitefish. I wound up breaking the food into lumps with a scoop and he was really quite enthusiastic about consuming it. He polished off half of the food with ease, then went back to moping. Or maybe he was just tired.

Anyway, Jerky seems rather more responsive today. He was able to raise his head and full open his eyes. He even tried to sit up with difficulty, though he only succeeded in shifting his position. Quite an improvement from his original morose fetal position when I found him. Hopefully he'll be yet better the next day, though something would need to be done about his surroundings. I donated a disposable lab coat for his use as a makeshift cushion, but the food around him is bound to rot and will have to be cleared if he's unable to finish it. He'd need to be cleaned, too.

Jerky The Cat

There's this cat which is seriously sick. And he's decided to curl up to die downstairs. At first I thought it was most certainly the end of the road for him. And then he decided to mew at me. While it sounded more like Ouch than Hello, I figured that if he was spirited enough to mew at me despite being reduced to fur (his fur's still intact, after all), skin and bones, I got him some water. This was when I decided to call him Jerky, because he was so weak he could only struggle jerkily to control his head enough to lap at the water I provided.

This was when I figured that Jerky could probably do with some food. He turned out to be game enough to gnaw on a barbecued chicken wing (not proper food, I know, but it was all I had at the time) and would have finished all of it if I deboned the thing properly. Not bad, for a dying cat. Perhaps he has some fighting spirit in him yet. As long as he's willing to eat and drink, I'll provide stuff for him. Maybe he'll die, maybe he won't. But at least he's not going to starve or thirst to death on my watch.

The New Year

It's a new year! Or is it? All I figure is that it seems most curious that the rollover of a second can neatly demarcate a "new" year from an "old" one. If anything, it's a new day (or is there even such a thing?) and life goes on. When the fanfare and (admittedly) pretty fireworks die down, I find that nothing has really changed.

This begs the question of why anyone would bother with a rollover. Of course, it could just be a mass joyous self-deception to have the self-deception of believing that an era has passed and a new one beckons. A lie (that, if told often enough, may become truth) that something has changed, and that there's a clean slate. Besides, there's a chance that the complacency that something has magically changed over will turn to bitter disappointment when the reality hits and proves that nothing has really shifted without effort to that effect.

Maybe I'm a cynic, but I really do like New Years...primarily for the holiday. Otherwise, it's a practical matter to switch over my calendar and to ponder about how I should go about my life, one day at a time. Preferably without the illusory comfort of a line drawn in time.