I believe one's first priority in life should be to learn to love oneself. I find it curious that loving oneself is often associated with narcissism and is thus generally frowned upon. To me, loving oneself and being narcissistic are two different things. One's about having a healthy self-love so that one does not develop self esteem issues, and the other is about loving oneself to excess such that one becomes incapable of considering others' needs.
In my opinion, one is incapable of truly loving others if one cannot actually love oneself. In fact, those who do not love themselves seem to be the sorts of people who act in a mean manner towards others, or seem to mechanically perform beneficial acts without self-motivated intention. For example, I know of people who have a very other-driven aspirations. When they do things, it's exclusively for the sake of other people. I do not believe it to be a bad thing to wish others well, regardless of the origin of those motivations. However, I find their situation to be precarious, because the actions are done in an effort to seek approval from others so they feel validated in loving themselves. Basically, should that approval disappear for any reason, their self esteem crashes. It is not unlike a junkie seeking a fix.
Then again, self-love is not necessarily something that is easy for everyone. There are various reasons for it, ranging from real personal problems to trouble overcoming social conditioning. I suppose it helps some that I am something of a narcissist and would generally do things primarily for myself, but then again I also have little trouble doing beneficial things for largely altruistic reasons. Regardless, my view of life is to first love oneself, and the other loves will follow. Mostly.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
The Writer's Gaze
I was reading the work of a local writer, and basically found the writing style to be clumsy. I tried to identify exactly what was clumsy about the style, which seemed quite common to new local writers.
The style, as I would describe it, is akin to having a fixed writer's gaze. A novel, like a movie, has a gaze. This gaze essentially is the camera in a movie or a perspective in the novel. When the gaze is fixed, the narrative starts feeling stilted. An example of such stilting is the constant act of describing what happens in the story from a fixed perspective. The woman enters the bathroom. It has pink tiles. She turns on the water and soaks in the tub once it is full.
Now, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the description. It does indeed let the reader know what is going on in the scene. However, the perspective taken also creates a sense of distance, with a distinct lack of richness. How does the bathroom smell? What are the sounds? Is there something going on in the immediate area? Undoubtedly, there are times when distance is desirable and can even be used to create suspense. However, when an entire story starts being written with such distance and lack of sensory richness, it gets stale in a hurry.
The style, as I would describe it, is akin to having a fixed writer's gaze. A novel, like a movie, has a gaze. This gaze essentially is the camera in a movie or a perspective in the novel. When the gaze is fixed, the narrative starts feeling stilted. An example of such stilting is the constant act of describing what happens in the story from a fixed perspective. The woman enters the bathroom. It has pink tiles. She turns on the water and soaks in the tub once it is full.
Now, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the description. It does indeed let the reader know what is going on in the scene. However, the perspective taken also creates a sense of distance, with a distinct lack of richness. How does the bathroom smell? What are the sounds? Is there something going on in the immediate area? Undoubtedly, there are times when distance is desirable and can even be used to create suspense. However, when an entire story starts being written with such distance and lack of sensory richness, it gets stale in a hurry.
Losing Their Religion
Sometimes I think that certain churches are losing their Christian direction. Correction, perhaps more than just sometimes. The very religion is full of contradictions, but I think the worst one is when legalism is allowed to supercede grace.
I am talking about the way these churches turn away those perceived to be "sinners". Now, of course, it is a Christian ideal that people avoid sin as far as possible. Yet, it is also recognized that the church is meant to serve as a sanctuary for sinners, since its presence would not even be needed if everyone were truly blameless. Indeed, at that point I'd say everyone was in heaven.
So the problem here is that if certain groups of "sinners" are kept out of the church, would they not become a group of "unsaved" people and made so by the neglect of those who are "less" sinful? Shouldn't the goal of salvation be to let everyone in on the deal, but leave Big G to judge? Truly, I think, there are a goodly number who have lost their direction.
I am talking about the way these churches turn away those perceived to be "sinners". Now, of course, it is a Christian ideal that people avoid sin as far as possible. Yet, it is also recognized that the church is meant to serve as a sanctuary for sinners, since its presence would not even be needed if everyone were truly blameless. Indeed, at that point I'd say everyone was in heaven.
So the problem here is that if certain groups of "sinners" are kept out of the church, would they not become a group of "unsaved" people and made so by the neglect of those who are "less" sinful? Shouldn't the goal of salvation be to let everyone in on the deal, but leave Big G to judge? Truly, I think, there are a goodly number who have lost their direction.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Knowing What You Want
When it comes to game design, it can be quite difficult knowing what one wants especially with regard to balance. I love the mid production phase when a lot of stuff isn't in yet, but it's sufficiently complete that people start believing that they have an idea of just where the balance should go. It's a real awkward situation.
In fact, it can be somewhat bewildering. On one paw it's entirely possible to keep tweaking the balance until everyone is satisfied. However, by doing so, not only is there unnecessary work from the constant tweaking, it also becomes increasingly difficult to keep track of less than legit changes made to achieve balance in the interim state of the game. This is a comparatively small matter on a small project, but the difficulty of maintaining documentation on a large project is very much harder.
Then again, the tweaks can also be viewed as iterations. In general, the higher the number of iterations, the more the balance is refined. By that logic, the balance should be constantly tweaked.
Of course, I did figure a balance point to my balancing approach. Specifically, that the tweaks should be made periodically to address the most significant flaws, while keeping in mind the overall direction of the project. That basically means leaving some flaws out of the fixing cycle such that they serve as a constant reminder of just what is still missing. It is not pleasant, but it serves its purpose.
In fact, it can be somewhat bewildering. On one paw it's entirely possible to keep tweaking the balance until everyone is satisfied. However, by doing so, not only is there unnecessary work from the constant tweaking, it also becomes increasingly difficult to keep track of less than legit changes made to achieve balance in the interim state of the game. This is a comparatively small matter on a small project, but the difficulty of maintaining documentation on a large project is very much harder.
Then again, the tweaks can also be viewed as iterations. In general, the higher the number of iterations, the more the balance is refined. By that logic, the balance should be constantly tweaked.
Of course, I did figure a balance point to my balancing approach. Specifically, that the tweaks should be made periodically to address the most significant flaws, while keeping in mind the overall direction of the project. That basically means leaving some flaws out of the fixing cycle such that they serve as a constant reminder of just what is still missing. It is not pleasant, but it serves its purpose.
Saturday, October 09, 2010
To Calibrate A Response
Ideal responses and real responses differ, and I think most are quite aware of that. Today, I was pondering the way my colleagues often defer to their superiors. Basically, they cut out certain responses in a bid to somehow not offend their superiors. While I can see how this can be a useful survival technique, I do view such deference as a form of cowardice and not quite an optimal way to deal with superiors.
Now, my view is to treat everyone as equals. That is regardless whether they are the world's most powerful president or the lowliest beggar. Of course, since some beggars can be quite irritating, that does not always hold true. However, I do not permit myself to be intimidated by someone's social status on its own merit. Ultimate, I would treat them as I would any other person, unless I receive a very clear signal to the contrary.
My view is that such an approach is more optimal, because one never knows just how receptive a superior may be to casual but respectful conversation and suggestions. It seems quite pointless to gimp one's own opinions by having the default view of one's view not mattering. If anything, the superior may well be swayed to one's view through other means. In fact, that can circumvent the superiors' right to overrride a view that they feel is contrary to their goals. In brief, I believe a subordinate should never sell themselve short.
Now, my view is to treat everyone as equals. That is regardless whether they are the world's most powerful president or the lowliest beggar. Of course, since some beggars can be quite irritating, that does not always hold true. However, I do not permit myself to be intimidated by someone's social status on its own merit. Ultimate, I would treat them as I would any other person, unless I receive a very clear signal to the contrary.
My view is that such an approach is more optimal, because one never knows just how receptive a superior may be to casual but respectful conversation and suggestions. It seems quite pointless to gimp one's own opinions by having the default view of one's view not mattering. If anything, the superior may well be swayed to one's view through other means. In fact, that can circumvent the superiors' right to overrride a view that they feel is contrary to their goals. In brief, I believe a subordinate should never sell themselve short.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
To Scent
I think living in an urban environment tends to nudge most of us towards heavy uses of sight and hearing as the primary senses. Touch and taste come next. And the last one that's of major significance seems to be smell, except perhaps when it comes to food.
One thing that's been fascinating me lately is how people smell different. I'm not talking about the obvious scents like nasty body odors or heavy perfumes, but the general biological and acquired scents of each person. Some females smell particularly musky, and somewhat different during the different times of month. Others are mostly scentless except for the lingering aroma of the shampoo/skin cream/sunblock. One of my male colleagues smells faintly of beef and something of dog, and yet another male colleague smells something of goat and something vaguely metallic.
Consciously recognizing each aromatic signature is key to knowing who's standing behind me, along with the other signs like the general height and mass from the floor's vibrations. Besides the identifying factor, it's just interesting to pay attention to the less used senses for a change. I guess that is how animals with stronger senses of smell become able to readily distinguish between people. Being able to mentally mark out the individual constituents of each scent goes a long way towards identifying unique aromatic signatures.
One thing that's been fascinating me lately is how people smell different. I'm not talking about the obvious scents like nasty body odors or heavy perfumes, but the general biological and acquired scents of each person. Some females smell particularly musky, and somewhat different during the different times of month. Others are mostly scentless except for the lingering aroma of the shampoo/skin cream/sunblock. One of my male colleagues smells faintly of beef and something of dog, and yet another male colleague smells something of goat and something vaguely metallic.
Consciously recognizing each aromatic signature is key to knowing who's standing behind me, along with the other signs like the general height and mass from the floor's vibrations. Besides the identifying factor, it's just interesting to pay attention to the less used senses for a change. I guess that is how animals with stronger senses of smell become able to readily distinguish between people. Being able to mentally mark out the individual constituents of each scent goes a long way towards identifying unique aromatic signatures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)