Maturity

I live in an ageist society. This means, culturally speaking, one is privileged if one is viewed as "old" in some way. Something like seniority from hanging around a job for a long time, just dodging death for a number of decades or just plain acting as if one's older than one really is. Yes, that means "maturity", in a completely arbitrarily defined sense.

Now, I surmise that a goodly number of the locals seem quite intent on projecting that air of maturity. It can be seen from how they religiously show their intolerance of anyone who acts contrary to their idea of maturity (ignoring how that may in itself be conduct typical of somewhat immature high school children) and an emphasis on how those younger than they are...are "children". Or kids. Whatever.

I suppose I could regard this as a socially motivated attempt at soliciting the social benefits associated with age. To me, however, everything within reason is permitted and I am perfectly happy to accept any sort of goofy behavior on the condition that it does not disrupt the bottom line. That also means I have no qualms about tolerating staff goofing about at a sit down restaurant as long as my food comes to me on time and is prepared properly, and that I wouldn't hesitate to take an elderly person to task for being rude. They should really know better, and I have no tolerance for senile delinquents.

On Ghosts And Superstition

I heard a most interesting phrase from a friend today. Someone asked her if she believed in ghosts. To which she responded "Of course I do. I'm Chinese." It was then that it occurred to me: it is possible for superstitions to form part of an ethnic identity. Of course, it should've occurred to me earlier given how certain ethnicities regard certain religions as an integral part of their shared experience and whatnot.

Regarding this sort of (if I may say so) Chinese take on the supernatural, I do still wonder if there is a common thread to the superstitions of the various peoples. The Chinese have a very specific world view, full of taboos and hostile spirits. In fact, anything supernatural seems to be viewed as invariably hostile by the Chinese (with the exception of deities, which are generally benevolent). It is something to be guarded against. In some American (and European) takes on the issue, a number of supernatural presences may be benevolent in addition to the usual pantheon of goody two shoes.

I am largely a skeptic when it comes to the supernatural, primarily because 99% of what people report can be relatively safely regarded as hooey since the phenomenon may be common and/or really easily explained. Take for example the way expansion and contraction of in-wall piping can contribute to the sound of marbles being dropped on the floor (often attributed to the actions of a playful child spirit). Yet, given the ubiquity of the belief in the supernatural, I'm always curious as to whether there's truly a kernel of truth to these beliefs and if so how it may be systematically controlled (or at least predicted). At this point, however, I am mostly of the belief that there may well be something out there, but it remains unproven at this point. I'll put up my I Want To Believe poster sometime. I promise.

Pirates: On Stranger Tides

First things first. I don't care what people think, but I think Keira Knightley to be rather hot, and therefore am less than happy to watch a Pirates flick without her in it. That said, I think the rule of sequels is pretty much true: The longer the series gets, the more tired it tends to become. This particular movie is no exception.

Good things first. There's Jack Sparrow. With Johnny Depp playing as Jack Sparrow. And Geoffrey Rush as Cap'n Barbossa. Good stuff. It's got the usual humorous (and sometimes downright absurd) action sequences. Par for the course. In short, it's like Another Episode in the Pirates series. Nothing truly outstanding. Quest for something, get disrupted along the way, humor injected here and there like Botox, end of tale.

Now, the thing is I really really really really ^ as many as I like...hate the way they incessantly inject romances into shows. Hmm looking back at my movie reviews, I'd say...how many of them have actually appealed to me? None. No Keira Knightley. Ok. That's another minus. Put the two together and then I'm ignoring most of the show that doesn't have Barbossa or Jack Sparrow in it. These remaining bits just lack the sort of oomph they had in Pirates 1 and 2. Well...more like in 1 only, since 2 was getting sorta tired already and I honestly thought 3 spelled the doom of the franchise.

What would I say about this on the whole? Well it's fine for Pirates fans who know what to expect of the series and will most certainly get it. Not so fine for everyone else who would expect something new, groundbreaking or with at least a serious touch of originality. Oh, and fewer loose ends in the story. I'd say...6.5/10, you savvy?

The Panopticon

The internet seems to have become a panopticon of sorts for world leaders. Undoubtedly, one may argue that a country's leadership maintains a stranglehold on information in and out of a country, and can therefore restrict internet access as it pleases. Yet, it is also undeniable that the internet technologies have become sufficiently pervasive that it is now exceedingly difficult to completely silence the peoples' voice short of becoming something of a hermit country much like North Korea.

It cuts both ways. Clearly, the people are being monitored, but this time the panopticon permits the prisoners to stare back. The question now is who the watchers are, and who is watching. In the grand scheme of things, I'd say the leaders are approaching parity with the people. More interestingly, the sheer speed and volume of information dissemination has served to magnify issues the world over. Where only major earthquakes would've made headlines in the days of print media, now even comparatively minor tremblors or even minor tremors may make the peoples' news, massively increasing the salience of issues and events that may have been passed by in the old days. As always, I would find it interesting to see how all this shapes up in the decades and perhaps centuries to come.

Social Joy

Social joy is a curious thing. By the term I really do mean the kinds of people who seem to derive quite some pleasure from the physical company of others. I know some people who are like that, as opposed to the more common lot who simply enjoy the presence of others but with hardly as much gusto.

Being the sort that does not mind being physically alone for extended periods of time, I find it curious and perhaps quite fascinating that anyone could feel otherwise. That is, of course, regardless the fact that clearly many people do. On self analysis, my conclusion would be that I am more averse to the lack of mental stimulation, and I would be quite unbearably bored if I had to sit still for 20 minutes without an objective or novel experience of some sort to accompany me. Yet, the presence of another person more often than not serves only to disrupt those objectives or experiences, thus forcing me to switch to a more social mode that is contrary to my inclinations. In short, social presences are actually less desirable in my context.

I wonder how it is like for other people, who actually have social presences as core objectives to help them while their time away. It is strange, and attempts I have made so far at being social have done little but to leave me feeling hollow as I realize that I've spent otherwise self-productive time with others instead and not quite making me feel embiggened in any tangible way.

Survivalism

The key core of humanity seems to be survival. When the shit hits the fan, the only thing humans are likely to think about is fighting for their own survival. I suppose that's something that's bred into the human genes, which is what keeps those sheep alive this long.

I suppose one of the things that really bothers me about humans in general are the ones who are "realists" who have no personal code of ethics. To be sure, their own real personal ethics would revolve around whatever is most prudent for their survival (whatever form that may take). In short, they would flop whichever way they can, as long as they wind up getting ahead...or at least not be left behind.

I guess in that sense I am not quite a realist. If anything, I may well be a hopeless idealist. If what I believe in and am willing to fight for is less than optimal for my success or survival, I would pursue it regardless. I guess this is the sort of mindset that gets one killed and thus unable to pass on one's genes, which prevents it from spreading further in the gene pool. Whatever the reason may be, I am not very inclined to stand by and watch things happen as long as I have the ability to do something about it. Failing which, I'd be pondering ways to obtain that sort of ability...

Positive Hypocrisy

I hate hypocrites. If anything, people should always be true to themselves, and actually stand by the beliefs they claim to hold. Today, I was thinking about a sermon in church and why it peeved me so much. Basically, it was about how one could cry out "Praise God!" in lieu of expressing anger. Blasphemy!

Now, think about it. What could be closer to the definition of using God's name in vain? Is this not outright blatant hypocrisy? This is precisely what peeves me about the falsely positive Christians out there. They are so outwardly happy no matter what happens, even when it is apparent that their joy is a paper thin facade that they are deceived into maintaining. Sure, it is well and good to be happy when one should be, but it's another to delude oneself into being happy when one truly isn't.

Indeed, I say that if one experiences negative emotions, they should simply embrace it. The emotions exist for a reason. And if they should wish to find ways to curtail excess negativity, that is a good time for prayer and meditation. Slapping an illusory smiley over the problem is not going to solve it, numnuts!