Ascetism And Pleasure

I find some religions very strange in the contradictions between ascetism and the pursuit of pleasure. Now, some do instruct their followers to deny worldly things in pursuit of enlightenment of some form. That seems like an interesting enough proposition, considering that the assumption is that the world is something everyone wants to get away from. Life sucks enough as it is, eh?

Then comes the problem. The ultimate result of ascension is some form of eternal pleasure. Now, I can understand that humans in general wish to avoid pain and gain pleasure. It's a simple enough to understand sort of hedonistic drive. Unfortunately, in religions that purport to deny the world, it seems quite counter-intuitive. After all, isn't pleasure a distinctly worldly thing? One cannot be sure that anyone can actually experience pleasure as humans understand it once they're dead. Do ghosts/souls/ascended beings actually have some way of processing pleasure? That question's probably one of theology, so I'd leave you to form your own conclusions.

Even worse is the pursuit of enlightenment in avoidance of pain. That's very much along the lines of the this-world-sucks-I-should-leave-it mentality. In the choice between eternal pleasure and eternal agony, the choice is quite a no-brainer. I'd be rather a lot happier not screaming in pain for eternity. However, such a simple dichotomy of choice raises a question: Is there no state in-between, and is the appearance of these very simple options present to distract people from other possible goals?

To me, "enlightenment" should have its merits as an end in itself. If one wishes to pursue enlightenment in order to gain pleasure or even to "ascend" and thus become superior in some way, then the path to enlightenment becomes an means to an end. It is no longer the ultimate goal. Some may ask: So why pursue something for its own sake? For now, my personal answer is: Why not?

Being A Flake

Dangit I hate to admit it, but I do tend to be a flake at times. Dr Manhattan, might I join your club? Anyway, it can be rather annoying to haul my butt out all the way to a computer fair, only to realize that it wasn't at the usual place. Hmm...right. Perhaps I was mistaken about the location. The logical thing to do, obviously, was to haul butt down to the other usual location. Surprise surprise. It wasn't there.

Now, it's common enough for me to mistake my dreams for reality, and my dreams are vivid indeed. However, it seems highly unlikely for me to mistake the *date* of the event, especially when it was so clearly stated on the computer fair's webpage. This caused me to doubt my sanity, though of course one can never be certain about sanity with one like myself. Nonetheless, it was a good thing to head to a terminal to investigate this further.

After a simple search, the exact same page came up. Ah, I was not mistaken about the date after all. The location, however, appeared to be different from the two usual suspects. Hmm...obvious enough. I must have missed that little detail. Interestingly enough, however, that little detail turned out to be the *country* where the computer fair was held. WHOT!? Yes, another country was holding a computer fair by the same name, with a similar website appearance and whatnot. Lovely. Now let's hear it for the flake! Hip hip! Errr...well I forgot the rest.

Running With Wolves

There are times when I walk alone along a long path at night, and things get really boring. In fact, it is a terrible drudge to move slowly along the pavement. Being used to the speed of four wheels really does little to one's time perception when walking home. Of course, a comparable (though not equivalent) mode of transport would be on four paws.

Sometimes it just feels strange, yanou. Walking along and feeling like running, but on fours instead of on two legs. Now, that wouldn't make sense, since that would be awkward given one's anatomy. Then again, the flights of fancy do not necessarily have to make sense. Probably results of a bored mind on long boring solo trips. Ah, the joys of having a camera as a companion.

God Might Be Random

The assumption most people have about God is that She is personal, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. They also assume that God created the universe. As a result of the act of creation, the world is created out of the randomness within a controlled random system. This is quite a logical leap, however. Given that God is omni-everything, it is highly limiting to assume that She would act in ways of ordered thought consistent with human sensibilities. After all, the mind of God is by definition unknowable by mere mortals. Randomness as a motivation (or arbitrariness, if you will) is not out of the question. Fun/amusement might be that motivation as well, if one were to imprint God with a human desire.

Then comes the matter of being omni-everything. If that were true, the only thing that would be relatively unpredictable would be the presence of a random system ordered by simple rules. An ordered random system would be unpredictable, and result in the spontaneous generation of order as defined by the simple rules imprinted in the beginning. Life as an ordered system can be entirely possible within the framework of a random system, as the gross characteristics may appear ordered when the core of it is randomness. The particles within humans still move randomly, changing their trajectories, acceleration and velocity in accordance to the rules within the random system.

Since the generation of life may well be random, and not intended to serve some unknowable higher purpose, it is hubris to assume that God is personal. That is, God actually caring about humans at a personal level. For something that is omni-everything observing a controlled random system, it is unthinkable that one particle should be more interesting than another, or at one human be that much more special than another. In fact, the very event of a divine intervention might be the result of the creator of the system adjusting it to ensure that it remains in a state of randomness. After all, a random system moving towards order would become increasingly predictable and that is undesirable by virtue of the fact that an omniscient being/force would already know what would happen.

So why the thought of a personal Creator? Humans have needs. One of the needs is for affirmation or "love". Understandably, most humans simply do not have the energy to "love" everyone else. They can probably do that for a few fellows. What happens, then, when a human is isolated, or feels so due to circumstance? The logical thing to do would be to conceive the idea of something that has unconditional love for the average human, and thus provide a constant supply of "love". If there are instances of divine intervention observed by humans (or thought to be divine intervention), they can understandably be attributed human feelings and assumed (with much hubris) to be the personalized care of an omni-everything deity.

Of course, the consideration of a random God is not without flaws. The key assumption is of course that if there was a reason for creation (of the universe and not earth specifically), and that the reason is fun. This would again assume a human side to Her, and that is quite an assumption given that God isn't quite limited by the foibles of humanity. Moreover, it's understood in terms familiar to the limited cognitive abilities of mortal minds, and the real reason might be well beyond human language and cognition. However, if that were the case, as far as the human intellect is concerned, the reason for creation and everything about life might as well be random: It is ultimately unknowable.

The Recession Effect

When the recession was declared in the press to be particularly serious, I noted an interesting pattern amongst my friends. Everyone was talking about the recession and how they should cut back on spending. Being concerned, of course (heh. heh. heh.), I asked them why that was so? Were they retrenched? Were their parents or relatives fired? The answer was no.

Recessions have an interesting effect on spending, because people are likely to start cutting back on spending simply because of the economic climate instead of their own financial situation. It is understandable to cut back if the finances have gone south back home, of course. However, such caution in a large scale is part of the recession problem in the first place.

Companies that try to cut back in anticipation (or in response to) poorer business tend to decide to fire people sooner or later. These people might not be picked up by other companies because...those are cutting back, too! Eventually there will be a bunch of unemployed people who are unable to spend, further driving business down. The situation worsens. I think most will understand where this cycle leads.

Now, the interesting thing is recovery. Surprisingly enough, the opposite situation can happen during a "recovery". When enough people convince themselves that the recession is over, they start hiring and spending again, driving business back up. The one we're seeing now is likely premature considering the international problems at the moment, but is an illustration of just how sentiment can cause self-fulfilling prophecies.

Camera Favoritism

I loathe to waste assets. Cameras are assets. One thing that's been bugging me when I had multiple cameras was that certain bodies invariably wound up with less utility than others. Especially when one's a "backup" or at least a special purpose unit. That is when camera favoritism occurs: One camera winds up sitting in the dry cabinet for unhappy amounts of time.

My solution to the problem, of course, was to downsize. Where possible, a unit that duplicated the capabilities of another would be pawned off. Ultimately, I wound up with a single dSLR, a large sensor prosumer and a compact camera. Each serves a different function. The compact is a backup take-everywhere unit. Light duty, but gets the job done. The large sensor prosumer is a bit of an oddity. Large and heavy as a dSLR with lens attached, but the prosumer was cheap to obtain and has a really superb lens that is reasonably versatile. It's also relatively silent. As a result, it winds up in situations where good image quality is required but fast shooting speed, the flexibility and heft of multiple lenses prove unnecessary. Finally, there is the dSLR, with fast speed and long glass to take care of the more extreme demands.

While the three bodies admittedly overlap in focal length coverage, there is a reduced possibility of camera favoritism, since each body has its use. Ultimately, I find myself using all three from time to time, as opposed to when I had two dSLR bodies and routinely left one at home because it lacked the capabilities of the other body. It seems like a more tenable solution for the moment.

Superstition And Control

Humans are superstitious animals by virtue of the nature of learning. There are some unknowns that are quite unverifiable, yet the unknowns serve as a fertile seedbed for fears. After all, people do not enjoy the prospect of nasty things happening to them, and it is a small price to pay to adopt rituals that avert such nastiness. Depending on one's culture, that nastiness will vary. Older cultures may have spiritual fears, the contemporary capitalist culture will have materialistic fears.

Given that superstition involves fears of the unverifiable, it is a simple enough matter to exert control on others through manipulation of those fears. It stands to reason that one would wish to minimize those fears, and such a solution comes from the injection of unverifiable snippets disguised as "facts". After all, since both problem and solution are unverifiable, it is easy to assert that the resurgence of unpleasantness is attributable to a lack of adherence to (or belief in) the unverifiable solution. Such is the power of the unverifiable, when humans allow those fears to force them to cling to a superstition.

Once this control has been established, one needs to have either an ongoing unknown that continually threatens to shatter that illusory peace that salves the psyche, or to continually establish new unknowns to keep the fear fresh. If one can keep that momentum going, the constant presence of problems and introduction of solutions can keep the superstitious loyal for extended periods of time, perhaps sufficient to establish one's dominion over a large group of people for enough time to do extensive damage to whatever one detests.

Takes A Dunkin

I suppose today's entry will be somewhat...different from the usual stuff. That is, my phone survived a rather unique and really rather disgusting event in its product lifespan. I was in the toilet and the phone decided to take a little walk out of my admittedly really shallow pocket. After slip sliding off my thigh, onto the floor, across the really well polished tiles, it took a nice smooth slide across porcelain right into the water. 10/10. Oh, and it was yellow water, thanks to yours truly.

After a brief moment of bemusement (that the phone was actually still working underwater) and horror (that the phone was actually still underwater), I had to reach a paw in to grab stinky out, flick the water off, then strip it down so that the battery wouldn't fry anything for good. Thankfully, it seemed to be mostly functional at that point, so I had high hopes that it'd power up just fine after a rest in my dry cabinet.

Of course, it did survive, with all functionality intact. Surprising, considering that it wasn't exactly marketed as a weatherproof phone. Beats the snot out of the E3s which didn't survive a washing, huh. Then again, this is something that I would not be particularly thrilled to retry. As a side note, no, the phone doesn't smell of pee and/or poo since it's been cleaned. Yeah. Cleaned. *sniffs* Eww.

It's Not The Same

It's that time of year again. The last one in a line of 4. Semester's over, summer break's in, new computer, room cleared and messed up again. It almost seems the same. Theoretical freedom and time to hunker down to do the things I love. But then I look back on everything else and I find that things just aren't the same anymore.

Now, one key difference is responsibilities. Never was I ever obliged to actually do something during my summer breaks. That's nasty. People have few enough holidays as things go. One thing is I never can really cut loose when there are responsibilities. I do not like leaving things hanging, so I get my butt out there and slaughter them as best I can. Then another takes its place. And another. And another. It never ends, does it?

Still, I guess I'll still try to get my life back in shape. Things change, nostalgia remains. Therein lies the bite. Well whatever. New rig, no more restrictions. It's time to have some fun!

Room Clearing

Clearing my room from the aftermath of a semester of study makes me think of a game of musical chairs. No kidding. It really does. Now, the early stages of cleaning up are really more like a massacre. One moment there's a lot of stuff everywhere. Later on, it all just...disappears.

Then comes the hard part. After tossing out and/or rearranging everything, there remains the question of what can be done about the stuff that's not meant to be thrown away. The question seems easy enough, until one realizes that all the drawers, bookshelves and other containers are full as well.

Of course, this is really an exercise in irrationality. Obviously, if something's been left alone for long enough that they're forgotten and left in a drawer for ages, they're not terribly important. Aside from important documents in archive, of course. If that's the case, it's really a no brainer about what should be tossed. Then there's the case of the Too Cool To Toss syndrome.

TCTT is something any RPG'er will be familiar with. Suddenly the inventory's full of really cool stuff that the player can't bear to part with, then another cool item pops up. It seems that something's gona out-cool something else. Hence musical chairs. Toss the less cool item out to make way for the cooler one.

And the cycle continues with every storage space in the room. That's where the real irrationality comes in. Shouldn't most storage spaces be devoid of anything but truly archive quality stuff? Well, I guess ultimately it's a case of deferred decision making. I'll just decide on all that stuff at my next spring cleaning =p

Wolverine

What can I say? I am disappointed. Scratch that, I am deeply disappointed. When it comes to a movie about my favourite mutant, I pretty much expected a lot more adherence to canon. I mean, they've been doing just fine with other comic book adaptations lately, so this was really pretty bad.

Hmm...how do I begin? Frankly, the early part of the movie was fine. I liked the introduction though they largely skipped through Wolverine's history in the Wars. Nevermind that Victor really wasn't his brother. In fact, I was rather more pleased by the portrayal of Victor's growing madness than I was with Wolverine's development as a character. Although...well, this being Wolverine, I kinda expected a bit more blood and violence (I know, I know, it goes against his personality, but I've watched 300 and was spoiled by it) Anyway, Gambit was really quite the character in this show. Way better at what he did than I remembered. Sort of a Gandalf, really. That's not to say I wasn't pleased with the eye candy.

Unfortunately, that's where the producers started taking excessive artistic liberties. The bitter rivalry between Wolverine and Sabretooth started to look more like sibling rivalry over who's the best than something truly personal resulting from Sabretooth killing (instead of pretending to kill) Wolverine's beloved. Wolverine seemed a lot more enthusiastic about the Weapon X project, and came out of it a lot more whole than I remembered.

The worst part was Deadpool. When Wade first made his appearance, he was practically a Jedi, cutting bullets out of the air with a pair of katanas disguised as blurs. After he emerged as Deadpool, he was downgraded by having katanas stuffed in his wrists instead, had his mouth sealed (How does Deadpool trashtalk like this!?) and had Cyclops's eyebeams. That most certainly deviates way too much from the real thing. Poor Wade!

Overall, I'd say the movie would've gained a lot of points if they actually cut out the last half hour or so of total nonsense towards the end. But since they didn't, and I respect the director's decision, I'd say this movie's a 6/10

Earth Hour

Earth Hour is a very nice gesture in support of the idea of environmental conservation, and to make everyone realize just how much technology has infiltrated everyday lives. It makes people think about just what life would be like were there no electricity for a mere hour, yet provides an experience that is quite a stark contrast to just what we're used to at that time when we do have electrical power.

However, I fear the gesture is very much like what V-day and Christmas have come to mean: A single feel-good day/moment, then back to the usual programming. In light of the demands of everyday life and the routines of work/entertainment, it becomes all too easy to forget about environmental conservation. It is too easy to waste electricity without realizing it. On a large scale, this may mean that the effect Earth Hour has on the big picture can be quite minimal.

Perhaps it would be better if Earth Hour were combined with a daily reminder. A constant presence of a meter, or even one of those cheesy stickers would probably work mighty fine in conjunction with Earth Hour. With enough awareness, it might even be Earth Hour all hours...not just during an artificial lights out hour, but a conservationist lifestyle incorporated into everyday living.

The Soul Of Things

Things have souls. Even objects and constructs have souls. Without which, they would be but piles of dross. What is gold without the value people believe that it holds? What is air without its oxygen? What is a movie without its key scene?

When one censors a film, one must take care that they do not remove key parts that give it its true flavor. The censors must be careful that they do not reduce a show from one about fighting for one's ideals to one that merely glorifies violence. They should avoid creating a mangled piece that is without meaning or purpose.

What would V for Vendetta be, if Hollywood had decided that it would be fine to include the eucharist scene? What would it be like without Valerie's scene? It is well and good to portray a struggle against an oppressive authority, yet how is that struggle different from that of every stereotypical story of a rebel that succeeds against the odds? V was different by showing the State for what it was: Draconian, but also hostile to the sexual minorities and perpetuating the hypocritical lies and corruption that some religions promote in V's world. That much would have been lost had the two been removed. That is the soul of V. Without which, V would just be any other struggle-against-authority show, a rebel without a cause.

The Misplaced Enjoyment Of Money

The love of money is a dangerous thing, when laced with the wrong motivations for actually loving it. To be truthful, I'm not even sure it's possible to love money itself in a "correct" way, since it's really money's buying power that is attractive. In fact, money left unspent is just a large pool of potential, and stays as potential until actually spent.

Of course, it's also true that money kept in reserve has its uses, such as for unforeseen crises. Such as sudden unemployment, illness or something of the sort. It pays to keep such a reserve. Yet the reserve provides such comfort that some have transferred their enjoyment from the items money is spent on, to actually watching their bank accounts grow. From an individual's perspective, that really makes little sense since they'd be quite unable to enjoy those funds once they're old and infirm, or if they suddenly die.

Sometimes I wonder at those who just love watching their accounts grow (while not actually saving for anything, like a crisis fund or the next really big ticket purchase like housing). For those, wouldn't it simply make more sense to just program a number simulation that constantly ticks up the amount of money in a virtual bank account? After all, given their spending habits, they'd never spend enough to realize that the numbers are fake, so all they get would be pure, unadulterated satisfaction.

Can: i-bomb?

I had this hilarious experience related to me by my teacher earlier today. He said that someone on the bus reported that there was a suspicious package on board, causing the driver to stop the bus and investigate. Obviously, the item was rather alarming: It looked exactly like a sealed can of no-frills tuna.

Now, we all have watched those action films, where some tiny device winds up blowing up most of a city block. Or so it seems. Clearly, the bus driver figured that this was it. It was the i-bomb. Scary stuff. Just as any rational movie-goer, the bus driver decided that the can of tuna could've been some anti-matter conversion device, so he stopped the bus.

Everyone out. Nobody's taking any chances. Not in times like these anyway. Not when the American Dream came true and we wound up living it.

How Straight Are You?

I find it rather amusing when people say things like hey! that gay person hasn't tried sex with males/females (whichever's applicable), so they clearly have not met the right person and thus are gay. At a glance, it seems like a rather compelling argument. One does not truly know unless one tries, right?

Unfortunately, nobody ever seems to consider the converse. I mean, every other person who thinks he/she is straight has never actually tried sex with males/females, right? Wouldn't that make them potential gays who never found the right gay lover?

I also take issue with the rather bizarre idea that sex is the defining factor behind one's straight/gayness. I mean, whatever happened to virginity till marriage (or civil union or whatever have you)? If people believe that, no wonder gay (and straight) people are being all promiscuous, ever-eager to please the fickle masses about their true sexuality.

Children Are Vampires

Children are vampires. That much everyone can probably agree on, in principle. Now, the allegation is pretty obvious, all things considered. First, we have to begin with the definition of a vampire.

A vampire is an undead, blood sucking monster. From the various vampire lore, it is not always established that vampires are indeed vulnerable to sunlight or holy relics. Since nobody can really confirm that, we shouldn't jump to conclusions. Most do, however, agree that a stake to the heart can be rather debilitating for a vampire. Hence, we'll go with that for now.

Let's consider the child, then. Children were once fetuses. They start off sucking blood in the womb (yes, yes we know the biology, but it sure looks like it =p). Check that off. Children, as defined by adults, have no life. Technically, that would make them undead. Let's check that, too. Children, especially those under the age of 2, are called "little monsters". Right. Good. So we have an undead, blood-sucking little monster. Hence, we may conclude that children are indeed vampires, though many do grow out of that phase. That's why most adults no longer truly believe in vampires.

Of course, I did postulate that, based on this particular logic, other creatures may be vampires, too. Take for example Hitler. Given the Christian propensity to sing about drinking blood, I would have to assume that they are, at least metaphorically (and some claim literally) blood drinkers. Hitler was Christian. That makes him a blood drinker. Just about everyone agrees that he's a monster. There goes another. And of course, as a Nazi, he certainly had no life. If Hitler's a vampire, and so are children, beware, people. Vampires walk amongst us.

Christianity Out Of Context

There are perhaps few things as alarming as hearing certain Christian hymns taken entirely out of context. They are so freaky, in fact, that I think any wanabe demon or vampire worshipper could probably take the lyrics verbatim and change the background track some, then use it as their worship song. Or dirge. Or whatever that may be called.

If one steps back from the religious considerations, and takes the lyrics literally, one would be hearing songs about craving for blood, drinking it and eating (human) flesh. Rather unsavory things that are frowned upon in polite Christian society, methinks. Sometimes when I hear that, I feel a very strong urge to bring in some animal sacrifices, draw a rather elaborate arcane-looking summoning circle right in the middle of the church sanctuary, then slaughter the animals and babble some untelligible spell. It'd sound like I was talking in tongues anyway.

How Free Is Free?

Free will is truly the ability to make and execute decisions within the framework of what one knows, and what one is able to do. Everything beyond those boundaries is beyond the limits of free will. Choice becomes irrelevant when one lacks either the knowledge or ability to do anything about it.

Consider the case where I create a species of creature that's only capable of doing bad things, as defined by my concept of good and bad. While they are perfectly free to operate without my intervention, or imposing my will on their thoughts after their creation, they are also unable to fathom non-bad actions, because I created them to be so. Hence, within their range of awareness, they have free will. Unfortunately, I am quite aware that they do not, since I am aware that "bad" is not the limit of the possibilities of the range of actions.

Hypothetically, the only way to truly have free will is to be omnipotent and omniscient. That's because one would know all, and be able to do whatever one decides on. Of course, then we'd then be faced with the innate limits of power: The more powerful one gets, the less one is able to choose to do nothing. Every action and inaction one chooses will have consequences. Then again, if we regard the choice to not make a choice to be excluded from the considerations of free will, an omnipotent and omniscient being would truly have free will.

The Importance Of Humanity

It is Friday the 13th. Lovely day, it turns out. The 13th really has too much bad press. See? If you show it lots of love and concern, Friday the 13th will not come and bite you in the back. Do unto others and whatnot...

I was meditating on the importance of humanity, and I figure that humanity is an artificial construct that is seriously over emphasized. For one, nobody can really define what humanity is. Is it genetics? Conduct? Thought patterns? Sure, everyone's got a subjective opinion of humanity, which is quite invariably linked to the cultural beliefs that they hold (and probably take to be natural and globally generalizable).

So the question really is whether humanity as a concept is important. While it arguably encompasses concepts like compassion, kindness and other things deemed to be "good", it will be quite sufficient to be a "good" creature, regardless whether one is truly human. Just how important is humanity then?

Knowing People

I am constantly disturbed at how readily my parents would rely on first impressions to get their measure of people. That is, they're quite happy to have one look at the person and his/her conduct, then decide whether they want to get to know the person better or whether to be friends and such.

The problem here is that they're essentially allowing confirmation bias to rule their heuristic. Say you decide that someone's bad, so you look out for bad things and refuse to get to know the person better. In all probability, even rather excellent specimens of humanity would be prone to making highly visible mistakes from time to time. Should one be looking out for those same defects, one would feel justified in concluding that the said people were just...bad.

Then again, my method is probably not quite suited to what most are used to. It may even be deemed to be socially naive. However, I stand by my belief that people should be given a chance, and that it takes months to truly have an estimate of someone's measure. So even if someone gives me a seriously bad gut reaction, I'd be wary but not dismiss the person offhand. There can be treasure in junk, after all. Of course, if it is proven that the person means me harm, or has no intention whatsoever of being friendly, I think there's no shame in admitting that someone's just not friend material. At the very least, though, try to avoid dismissing anyone offhand.

I Hate Authority

I hate human authority. I do so with pride and a vengeance. The way things stand, authority, especially in the modern densely populated countries, is synonymous with bureaucracy. Perhaps it is bureaucratic authority that I abhor, but then again I am skeptical of authority in general. Authority is synonymous with power, and power corrupts. Concentrate power within a small circle of people (relative to the general population) and what you have is a disaster.

Why? People don't care. They really don't. In fact, it seems to be in the nature of humans not to care, regardless whether they are gen pop or in seats of power. That is why it is dangerous to invest any human with too much power over others. Thus, guidelines are needed to let people know what they should, shouldn't, can or can't do. So, what happens when someone needs something done? Refer to the guidelines.

Guidelines are rigid, and often poorly written. They mostly have no provisions for gray areas, despite how often those things may arise. Besides, it's a great excuse for the lower ranking bureaucrats to thump their rulebooks and say that things cannot be done. It almost sounds like a bad church, where the priest/pastor thumps the divine rulebook to a completely accepting population. What happens, then? Why would I hate authority? Because despite all its inefficiency, it is probably still a necessary evil, and I still don't like what it does to people even out of necessity.

WWIII?

Given the global situation, I sometimes wonder whether we are looking at a looming WWIII. And I'm not referring to just the current recession, which is undoubtedly a contributor to population pressures. However, while there may be a buildup to another global war, it still takes a trigger to set everything off so it may yet be averted no matter how gloomy the situation gets.

Besides the population pressures from a global recession, there are the international tensions that seem to be building up here and there. Tensions in the Middle East (Iran, Israel, Iraq, Palestine), Russia's aggressiveness against Georgia, the shift in power between China and the USA, political unrest in some parts of Southeast Asia, India and Pakistan's constant rivalry can all become contributing factors to a global war when allies are drawn into a conflict.

While there is a low probability of a war right in the middle of this particular recession (assuming it doesn't develop into a Depression), there is also the matter of Obama apparently trying to appease all sides at once. From a humanitarian standpoint, that is a highly desirable thing, and sure beats unpleasant favoritism whereby people are made to suffer at the whims of someone who doesn't agree with them. Historically, however, it is often these peacekeepers who ironically wind up supporting certain undesirable elements by not clamping down hard on them. Hopefully, the peaceable stance they're taking at the moment will rub off on the others, otherwise this could just be the beginning of a buildup towards WWIII.

Time Travel

Time travel in science fiction books has always seemed to be impossible, or incredibly delicate by virtue that the Butterfly Effect of causing a small change in the past could totally overhaul the future. This stems from the assumption that the timestream is a collective feature, and therefore everyone is affected by time all at once. Moreover, it is linear, so it becomes impossible for one to go into the past to kill one's father.

Theoretically, if timestreams were individual rather than collective, it is possible for the current reality to remain unaltered if one went back and did things that could incorporate themselves into one's past. For example, the inventor of time travel could go back in time to tell herself about how time travel works, and it was the basis of this self-informing that led to the creation of time travel itself. It may sound convoluted and contradictory, but it really just involves creating an individual time loop, where everything fits neatly into the past.

Also, this opens the possibility of a hero learning how to time travel, die in the past, get resurrected in the future and still not affect the hero's original reality. That's because the hero already lived through the entire timeframe, learned to time travel, went back to the past, died (probably without affecting other timestreams) and was somehow resurrected, then traveled to the future.

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.

A Root Of Rationality

A Root Of Rationality

It is strange to think that some rational arguments have their roots in irrational opinions. Before one can make a stand couched in rationality, one can have a subjective opinion on the matter. Given this possibility, it is not unexpected that irrational motions can be defended by rational arguments. For example, an objective fact like “Rabbits reproduce quickly” can be verified by objective comparisons between the rate of reproduction of rabbits relative to every other living creature. It becomes harder to do so when saying “Rabbits have too much sex”, in which case it is a subjective motion that requires, in addition to the rate at which they have sex, the definition of just how much is too much sex.

Who defines such things, and how are they defined? In a subject as distant and perhaps irrelevant as figuring out how much rabbits reproduce or if they’re too sexed up, it’s easy to tell the difference between arguments based on objective observations (regardless of their correctness; that is due to the researcher’s methods) and subjective ones. Better yet, in matters that are of fundamental concern to people, like say group activities in a collectivist society or religion in a theocracy, one may be tempted to couch irrational opinions in rational arguments.

The examples are all over history. Consider Gallileo, who had his ideas turned down by the Church for contradicting what was then a well established dogmatic “fact”. Undoubtedly, even the Church at the time had perfectly good rational arguments to defend their opinions which were not testable in reality. It was simply a matter of faith.

This leads to a crisis of faith, especially in matters where uncritical thought is celebrated. As some may quote Einstein, common sense is a collection of prejudices acquired by age 18. Being a collection of prejudices, the only real defense is to have some people thinking critically about what is widely accepted as the established reality.

Granted, it is impractical to have all of society mulling over every single matter, fearing for its factual accuracy or practicality. That would probably be as bad as or even worse than blind faith (or better, seeing as a surprising number of misconceptions could be hidden in common sense matters and someone may question the practicality of capitalism itself). Still, it helps that the rational arguments be tested for epistemological errors, and not just in the social sciences or “hard” sciences, but indeed in all areas that may harbor them. This would probably help prevent rationality from experiencing a serious case of root rot. As my subjective opinion on the matter, it should also be tested to verify its status as a viable option in an uncritical world.

Christmas Overseas

It is a most curious experience, spending Christmas in another country where Christmas isn't that big a thing. You can walk along the streets and not hear Christmas songs. That may be a good thing, seeing as the place is comparatively untainted by Christmas consumerism. However, it does also rob the feeling of Christmas.

Sometimes I ponder on the Grinch, and what Christmas is really about. It's not just about presents. Not that I exchange Christmas presents anyway. It's really about the intangibles, like being with your family and happy together. Or simply the celebratory mood that accompanies the season.

What is Christmas like in a country where it isn't really celebrated? Truly, it feels like any other day, with the exception that you're well aware of what the day means to yourself, and that feeling is a very, very private and personal thing.

Yes Man

Here is yet another movie that made me think. Which, of course, is a good thing considering that I expected Yes Man to be a rather light-hearted comedy. It turns out that the movie is quite the meaningful tale of how one can learn to live, but not to do so artificially. One cannot mechanically get a life, though one can find a way to loosen up and find enchantment in everyday living.

The drawback, perhaps, is the sort of stereotyped "life" that is presented as worth living. A life that seems to me to be suspiciously like that of a social addict. While it may be healthy to have a social life, being overly social and having little time for oneself sounds like a recipe for disaster. Besides, who's to say that one cannot have a "life" without voluntarily getting involved with lots of people?

Still, I feel that this is a rather good couple movie and meaningful. It made me think about what I've been saying "No" to, when I could (and wanted to) say "Yes". Sometimes, it's good to open up a bit more, methinks. And as for the show, I'd say it gets 8.5/10.

The Long Tom

Some days, you get lucky. Today, I kinda did. Someone donated a nice Pentacon 500mm f5.6 and it's pretty much exactly what I've been looking for for a long time. That is, a sturdy long lens which is capable of taking the shots I've been longing to make.

While I haven't actually managed to shoot using it just yet, I'm quite pleased that my current tripod is comfortably capable of supporting it. This means I'd be able to peg the longer exposures with confidence. That comes at a price, of course, since the lens itself already weights a healthy 3.5kg.

That aside, I guess I'm gona name this long tom...Hubble? Or should it simply be Long Tom. Ah, decisions, decisions...

The OM Bellows

After a long and expensive search for a good bellows unit, I finally settled on the Olympus bellows. Come to think of it, I should have kept searching for a bargain on the piece rather than walking in circles around its price. Anyway, it turns out that the bellows is really the only one worth bothering about.

For one, the bellows comes with a focusing rail under it. Moreover, the front and rear segments are fully reversible and mobile. That's quite an improvement even over the swiss piece I currently have, which has a fixed rear segment. Now that's something worth spending money on.

Of course, now my main issue will be to figure out how to modify the old bellows and/or get it offloaded...

Transcending The Human

The more I notice the disparity between logic and instinct, the more I feel that there is a need to transcend the human condition. That is, to transcend the instinctive animal that humans are, and to try to become more aware of one's deepest, darkest motivations.

As heuristic creatures, humans are quite adapted to life in the "wild"...which is quite different from the highly ritualized and regimented society that most urbanites live in nowadays. Yet this adaptation to living in a relatively uncontrolled environment can have many negative consequences in a controlled environment dominated by rational thought. Indeed, rationality itself can become corrupted by untrained instinct when subconscious urges lead to an imperative to drive a rational argument to victory at any cost, even to the detriment of logic itself so long as the argument may be won.

This is not to discount the intuitive side of reasoning, whereby one is in tune with one's feelings. In fact, understanding the roots of one's intuition and feelings is a step towards transcending the animal nature, whereby one knows why one feels as one does. That not only helps avert rash acts that may be later regretted, but also prevents oneself from being manipulated by others without realizing it.

The Day The Earth Stood Still

This will perhaps turn out to be a film that is a sign of our times, what with the constant fear of environmental disaster and the seeking of salvation from utter devastation. Actually, considering its theme, the film actually turned out to be pretty good.

Of course, we'd have to deal with the funnies first. The aliens (actually alien), turned out to be pretty human. Keanu Reeves human. They're quite ignorant and reckless just like humans, but we'd probably deal with that in another post. Primarily, everyone cracked up the moment dear Reeves decided to speak mandarin, and managed to royally mangle it (they really should have stuck with English). Oh, and how America tried to deal with ultra advanced aliens in a Bush'esque manner, then wonder if we managed to scare them off.

Overall, it was an ID-style end of world film, with infinitely advanced (and this time invincible) aliens trying to destroy earth, with the inevitable heroic ending where the earth gets saved. While I loved the theme of salvation where humans begged for another chance to save themselves, I felt it was pandering to the overdone idea that humans need to save their own planet, yet not inspiring any real drastic actions to the effect. Then again, that's probably not the objective of such a film...

I'd say 7.5/10, primarily because of the cool animations and nice concept, but it really could've been a lot better without the mangled mandarin and overly human aliens.

Izzy Hilton

Maybe I'm slow. Maybe I'm crazy. Or maybe I'm just Malkavian. But I dare say that Izzy Hilton is definitively incredibly cute. Alright, so I'm slow at catching on when it comes to these things. Go ahead, blame the Malkavian. I dare you.

That said, it is incredible what a neat little package he is (pun intended). By crushing on him, it's entirely possible to be simultaneously lesbian AND straight...all at once! Alright, perhaps this is quite out of character for me, but then sometimes it's just nice to cut loose. Anyway...this also means I'm back. Finally. After being grilled for incredible amounts of time while doing absurd stuff. Oh, and in the meantime? Get a Nosferatu to turn Izzy, wontcha?

Random Discoveries

Randomness promotes discovery. Actually, it is the random events that help "create" new things, such as the happy accident that spawned penicillin. Without the possibility of such randomness, the more unusual discoveries may never have been made and perhaps life would be a lot more boring.

Yet such discovery would prove more difficult to spot in the absence of controls. Had the petri dish not been known to contain certain organisms and the expected results known, the mold growing may well have been accepted as a regular occurrence and discarded.

It may be a lot more likely to have these discoveries in the presence of controls, but control must be allowed only to an extent. Should controls be so stringent as to forbid the acceptance of discoveries outside the realm of control, many breakthroughs may be discarded before their time, and discovery itself be significantly set back.

Death Is A Certainty

Everyone dies. At least, that's what most people are inclined to believe. That is, they believe that everyone is mortal, so they will die. However, how true is that? Can people truly die? What is death, then? Is it the body? The mind? The memories? Clearly not the spirit (where applicable), since the consensus seems to be that spirits are by definition dead already so they can't die again.

Most associate death with the death of the body. The person everyone once knew suddenly keels over and is dead. Yet what is it about the body that allows it to die only at that very moment? Cells are grown and die in a continual cycle. Even those cells that "died" did not die all at once at the moment of the person's death. Clearly, cellular death is not true death, or a preserving someone's immortal cancer cells will keep that someone from dying. Perhaps death lies in the person's award-winning personality instead.

That is quite flimsy an assumption, unfortunately. One's award-winning personality is unavailable when one sleeps. If one assumes that the personality would return after someone wakes, then it makes little difference if that same person went to a far off land. The assumption holds. And the person becomes effectively immortal till proven that the personality has faded. More importantly, the person is also effectively dead as soon as the person is brain-dead.

Yet personalities change, so the concept becomes yet blurrier. If the said personality were to change significantly that it no longer resembled the original, has the original person died? If that person "died", then the physically immortal may "die" as well. Would death not be a certainty, then?

Divorcing death from the body is probably not the idea that most hold about death, but it is one form of immortalization that many seek. After all, Elvis has not effectively died as long as people still remember that award-winning personality and everything related to it. As long as the memory persists, Elvis never died.

Unfortunately, the literal avoidance of death may be far more undesirable than anything. Like a new car, the novelties of life may rapidly fall away. What happens when one becomes ultimately sick of living? Will death, then, become a certainty?

To Forget

This morning, I recalled a mistake I made a year or so back. A mistake of forgetfulness. Granted, I could not be sure whether the initial act would have come to anything, but I will never know now. What's done is done, I guess, and perhaps it is for the better. I justified it back then, but I can never be sure whether it was "correct" in a right/wrong sense. After all, justifications are but one of the delusions that one gladly subjects oneself to.

Was it the inconvenience, the awkwardness? Was it the fear that something would have gone wrong? I do not know, but what I do know was that the whole thing happened because I forgot. It started as an elaborate plan, but is no more now.

Why sleep?

There are times when I sit around being annoyed at myself. Annoyed because I gota eat, sleep and deal with other bodily functions/requirements. What a drudge. I'd sooner sit around reading, shooting stuff, playing games...anything but the mundane day to day functions. Then it hit me. That was a perfect example of consumerism.

To be precise, the disdain for sleeping and eating is symptomatic of absorption into a capitalist, consumerist society. Granted, some of my activities are productive (which is also desirable for a capitalist), the others are acts of consumption. Indeed, few activities are actually for their own sake, besides the desire to either perform production or consumption.

While it may not be so bad to actually live some aspects of the capitalist life, it is disturbing how pervasive such views can be in modern society, and how insidious they may be that people go through the motions without realizing what they're doing.

The Alpha

There are many people who are purported to be "Alphas". They're stereotyped as aggressive, domineering, competitive and so on. Of course, they are also often male, since an equivalent female would probably earn the less favorable term "bitchy". Now, what is curious about the idea of the alpha is that there seems to be a contradiction between the theory and execution of the role.

An alpha is supposed to be a leader type, and really quite self-assured. That means the alpha isn't likely to get all huffy about potential competition. They'd be relatively certain of their position. The desperate jockeying for power by the alpha-wanabes is quite telling. Some might say that, well, there may be more than one alpha in the area, so there's competition. Fair enough, except that, besides the rarity of alphas, it is entirely possible that the two alphas form their own packs and remain in competition longer.

In fact, it takes a real alpha-type to get out there and say "Fuck this. I'm outta here." The uninitiated may regard this as an admission of defeat, but only a real alpha would be sufficiently self-assured to shrug off the perceptions of the lesser creatures, and live their lives as lone wolves. There just aren't enough packs out there for every alpha to have her/his own.

Max Payne

I played the game. Come to think of it, I played both of them. Max Payne as a game is quite the noir story. Fortunately, the movie itself did not disappoint. Granted, it certainly lacks the fun bits that were in the games (at least the first one), but it does have a charm of its own. Not to mention it included most of the key game characters.

That said, I was very disappointed with the presentation of Jack Lupino, seeing as how they decided to throw in the War on Terror theme in the context of the Valkyr problem. Moreover, he turned out to be quite the pushover when he was such a stunning and memorable character in the game. Same with Mona Sax. By the way, what happened to the Finitos and dear whiny Vinny? Ah, well.

Overall, I'd say it was a way better delivery than Hitman. That doesn't say much considering how much they managed to screw up the character of dear Tobias. Still, I'd say Max Payne deserves an 8/10

Meet The Medic

Medic bag. Fashion statement. Tasty. Personally, I was never really fond of sling bags and other similar single-shoulder bags. In fact, I'm reminded why I developed that dislike when I started loading up my medic styled messenger bag.

Then again, I was really in it for the coolness and didn't intend to replace any of my regular kit with this bag. Not something people would carry that often, but hey...I'm the medic. From Stuttgart. With the healing gun.

Rights And Responsibilities

Rights are invariably paired with responsibilities. If one has the right to do something, one would have a commensurate responsibility. There are problems when one does not recognize those responsibilities, especially when the exercising of those rights irresponsibly is likely to cause harm to the self and/or others.

Take for example the right to "rule the world", as many people are inclined to believe they are entitled to. That is, the right to use the world as they deem fit. Yet such a right would also involve responsibilities, like the ethical treatment of other things living on the earth. Things such as humans that can be harmed by pollution.

On Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is a measure that inspires dread. Most sane people would be quite unwilling to die at the gallows. Defending their homes against an enemy...maybe. Getting run over by a car...nasty, but still better than being executed. Capital punishment damages not only the body, but the reputations of the condemned and by extension the reputations of their family (foolish though it may be to attribute one's bad conduct to one's family).

The question, though, is what capital punishment truly solves. The penalties are harsh. Harsh penalties are to be avoided. Perhaps those with something to lose would shy away from criminal activities that involve capital punishment. Those that are caught will be made examples of. What of those who have nothing to lose? They will do it all the same, but with a greater emphasis on not getting caught. In fact, in the desperation brought by the knowledge that they are going to be condemned, they may well fight all the harder when in captivity.

Capital punishment implies the belief that some people are beyond redemption. Beyond reform. Reform is the prime goal of a system of incarceration, yet these systems are often what goes most horribly wrong in a country. What can a country do in the pursuit of justice? Will executions help solve the problem of crime?

Conscription: The Rite Of Citizenship

A country that cannot find citizens willing to defend it does not deserve to exist. That much is frighteningly true. It takes a really bad country to be nasty enough that the citizens are unwilling to defend it. Yet conscription is terrible when forced on the people. I would really rather have 10'000 solid troops at my back, than 100'000 who may or may not run away when the shit hits the fan. Others will beg to differ, of course.

Heinlein's suggestion of the idea of conscription as a way to citizenship is interesting, though rather simplistic. Should people wish to wield supreme power (in the form of voting), they need to serve their term in service. Yet the service of some will invariably be less grueling that that of others. Some will be in the line of duty during times of war, and others will be cooling their heels in the boot camps when bullets refrain from flying.

People who have served their nation are in no way "better" than those who did not. Perhaps they were cowardly, scheming or brave enough to serve, but that does not ensure that they know how to pick good national leaders. Basically, one would be putting supreme power in the hands of sheep.

That was an interesting suggestion in the story, that the nation's fiercest are being funneled into federal service, and turned into sheep. Sheep at the beck and call of their superiors, and ultimately the national leaders. Is this a good rite of citizenship? Do we really want to have a bunch of broken, obedient voters, and a cadre of independent thinkers who are unable to vote?

Starship Troopers

Here I am, reading yet another classic that was written quite some time back. I guess I was too taken up by the movie to consider the possibility that it could have been based on a book, and that the book can be so very different from the movie (and animated series). Well, again, I am not disappointed by the book.

Critics may say that Heinlein was essentially using the story as a long political essay, and the lack of depth of the characters does seem to substantiate that claim. In fact, the characters are pretty much like what one would expect out of a recruiting brochure, whereby the cookie cutter rookie grows from recruit to grunt to officer. Well...I'm really here to read a good piece of military literature that seems plausible enough, and I got it, along with a good dose of some biased political discourse on the military.

There are times when I wonder if I'm pro or anti military. The reality of militarization is that once one encounters a militarized society, it is quite foolhardy to calmly stay demilitarized and assume on good faith that the other will not attack. Moreover, I am totally in favor of the view that a country that has no citizens willing (note: *willing*, not pressed-into-service) to defend it, does not deserve to live. On the other hand, it is quite disturbing to know that we're handing the authorities a loaded gun, and any madman (it's almost invariably the men) will come along and cheerfully pull the trigger at the most inopportune time.

Still, I like the book for what it is, warts and all. I care not that Heinlein never went for combat drops. It was an entertaining read, and provided some thought-provoking ideas of what a military should be like. While I may not agree with all the ideas, I dare say that it was worth it just to know that they exist.

A Time Crisis

Never before have I experienced such a crisis of time management. I recall having lots of free time a couple years back, with the opportunity to play games at my leisure, and even the choice to go out for fun whenever I felt like it. Something changed in those years, causing time to be eaten up.

I realize the issue is probably due to online communications of various sorts. Being a rather solitary sort, there's always time to do stuff once schoolwork's done and all the usual chores. However, chatting is but one insidious way to fritter time away. It's not difficult to spend say 2 hours online just chatting with friends. Seems nice, and an alternative to going out. However, that adds up to 14 hours a week. That's approximately 2 fun outings.

Then there's the time consuming issue of actual outings, whereby friends would ask you out to movie sessions or parents would like company to the mart. Sure, it is quite acceptable to accompany one's parents from time to time, but that adds up, too. Not to mention connective spent on the transport and whatnot. Overall, is it any surprise that I no longer have the time to pull off the all day gaming sessions that I used to? Perhaps being a hermit once in a while is not quite so unacceptable after all.

On Individualism And Activism

It seems that activism may be more "feasible" in cultures that are more individualistic. That is, the activists feel freer to do their thing. After all, activism can be a rather lonely activity, especially if it is done in favor of fringe groups.

Often, activism is for something that is not supported by the people in power, otherwise there would be no need for activism. This implies a certain form of resistance that may not be socially acceptable. This is a clear problem in a group-oriented culture. For example, if a culture is highly group-oriented, the actions of an activist may reflect poorly on the family. More practically, an activist in such a culture may be expected to help support her parents, and this would be problematic if she is unable to find regular employment due to the social stigma of activism.

Effectively, one's dependents (e.g. parents, children, etc) are being indirectly threatened in such an environment, and the activist becomes easier to manipulate. After all, activists are often willing to sacrifice themselves to a greater or lesser extent for the furtherance of their causes, but will likely balk at the prospect of having loved ones/dependents suffer as a result of their actions.

On the other hand, one living in an individualistic culture does not always have to contend with such issues. She can easily choose to eke out a subsistence income level while supporting her cause. That is, without incurring social censure for neglecting the group in favor of personal pursuits.

Brave, Or Stupid

Many will acknowledge that there is a fine line between bravery and stupidity. On casual examination, the two are remarkably similar. They typically involve the actions of one, at great personal risk, in order to achieve something that is exceedingly difficult. Where does one draw the line?

Strangely, there is no hard and fast rule to determine what is stupid, and what is brave. It is often a subjective evaluation made at the point of action, or (for others) after the act itself. The evaluation itself is culturally situated, and what is brave in one culture will often be outright stupid in another.

So which is it? Sacrificing oneself for others, or having an every person for herself attitude? Do we charge forward when the enemy is encroaching, or do we hold the trench? How can one hold the line, when one does not know where the line is...

The Relationship Contract

At risk of sounding authoritarian, I believe that relationships are contracts. They are agreements between two or more willing parties to stay within the certain terms of those contracts, to the satisfaction of all concerned. If the terms of the contract are violated, the contract itself is in danger of being voided. Hence, it is useful to lay down the terms as precisely as possible, early on in the game.

This also means that the contracts may vary depending on the parties concerned. For some, the contracts are exclusive, and cannot include others within their terms. For others, the contracts cannot be exclusive, but must include others. The flavors in between are numerous, and may incorporate a number of clauses that either party finds essential.

Overall, the true danger (and wonder) is that the contract is not set in stone. Not everyone will be sure when they have violated a clause, and even when notified, which clause it was. Yet there is wiggle room in that some are more forgiving than others of violated clauses...

Price Vs Value

When consuming goods, it is all too easy to be blinded by their price, to the detriment of the evaluation of their utility value. When shopping, a glimpse into the bargain bin will remind people of how they made countless impulse purchases on "cheap" goods, only to find the same goods piling up in their storerooms. Strange, how low priced goods can represent such poor value.

I think the trick to spending wisely is not just to spend as little as possible, but to spend as little as possible on goods you actually need. That is, to learn to evaluate the "value" goods have when they're in your possession.

Ironically, getting better value may occasionally involve buying items that are more expensive than their alternatives. The thought seldom occurs to the budget-minded because it's just so counter-intuitive. Still, it must be remembered that the economy is not perfect, and some goods are simply "better" than others, with "better" being a subjective value known only to the consumers...

On Composing

Composing pictures seems like such an easy thing. Take your camera, raise it to your eye, frame a shot and then snap a picture. Yet it is possible for two photographers to take similar vantage points of a single scene, and still generate two completely different compositions. In fact, it is often that one photographer captures an exposure that's popularly deemed as significantly better than the other's!

Composing a shot is something that comes with the experience of knowing what works and what doesn't. For some, that means shooting with a long lens and pulling nice shots out every single time. For others, it is with a wide. Perhaps the higher goal is to be able to pick up any lens, and make every hit count.

Rolling A Bear Market

It is curious how people can see fit to sell their profits and hold their losses. In a game theory based logic, it is one of the worst possible ways to make money. It puzzled me for the longest time, because assuming that a stock was bought at a dollar, and it started falling constantly, the logical thing to do would be to sell it at a loss (relative to the original price paid), then buy it up after it falls.

The net effect is such: You started off with say...$1000. You bought a unit of stock at $1. The stock fell to $500 and is still falling. Common sense would dictate that the stock be held, since selling would realize a loss of $500. That's 50% off your initial capital. A really big deal. Yet many fail to realize that it matters little what the stock is worth. It is still a single stock unit. You effectively have no liquidity while holding that one unit. Assume that you sold at $500, and bought it back again when it fell to $400. Now you have one unit of stock, and $100 liquid.

Psychologically, it may have felt like you're now holding $400 stocks instead of $1000 stocks, but realistically you're still holding the same thing. What if the stock never appreciates back to near the level you bought it for? You'd be stuck holding an illiquid asset. Wouldn't it be better to maintain some liquidity to dive into the bear market when it starts to hit the bottom?

Gambling Stocks

For many people, dealing in stocks is very much like gambling: They are in it more for the experience than actually making money. I realized the motivation behind holding stocks for extended periods of time: It is very much like playing a jackpot.

A jackpot machine typically has two modes: One where you constantly haemorrage cash, and another where you hit the jackpot(s). These would correspond somewhat to the bull and bear cycles within a market.

During a bear cycle, stock prices are going down. You lose 10 cents, gain 6, lose 12, gain 8, lose 4, gain 3. The overall trend is downwards. Yet it is the small upward movements that keep people in the game. It is like when the jackpot machine gives out all these little winnings to keep people playing. The small winnings never exceed what you threw in, but they are powerful motivators.

During a bull run, prices are going up. That is like when the jackpot machine gives a smallish jackpot (but not the big one). Many players are satisfied enough to cash out at this point, effectively selling their profits. Everyone else would pat themselves on the back, and then try their hand at the machine again.

The cycle repeats itself until people go bankrupt, or they hit the jackpot. It is much akin to the jackpot, considering how few people actually turn a profit at this game. Yet a game it is, with (albeit constantly changing) rules. One who masters the rules has some hope of winning the game. How many, though, are willing to learn those rules?

On Acceptance

Acceptance is a curious thing. Even the greatly self-centered (like myself) are wont to feel some measure of satisfaction when others accept them for who they are. Perhaps it is an affirming thing. A confirmation of who one is. I believe that one should always be sure of who one is, though others approving of the same will always be more pleasant.

It is a strange feeling, being irrationally pleased when one's friend finally accepts some quirks in one's being. It has little bearing on the friendship itself, and certainly has little practical use. Yet many are strongly affected by such sentiments, and even grow to crave it.

I am not one such. At least not craving positive affirmations from others. I guess the satisfaction still stems from some primitive biological imperative that ensures that people are quite likely to stay together and thus improve their chances of survival. I'd question, however, how useful that is in modern societies where it is actually possible to live life as a lone wolf.

What Is Reality?

Reality is such a personally constructed thing that sometimes it is uncertain which is reality, and which is fantasy. Take for example the case of someone who hallucinates. Their reality is questionable, and requires much corroboration before the facts can be ascertained. It is arduous and so much so that some opt to ignore them instead. Those who hallucinate are simply not credible.

Yet there are other times when truth is indeed stranger than reality. In a legal court, common sense prevails. What happens when common sense fails? What if the truth is stranger than fiction, such that innocents are incarcerated on the fact that their cases are simply implausible (but true)? Again we face the crisis of reality.

What is real? The question is asked so often that it is really quite trite by now. However, it seems that there is no definitive reality, only the one that people choose to believe in. Does this make their reality more real than that of the hallucinators?

Racing Everything

I note that people seem to have an unusual propensity towards attributing certain behaviors to groups. Perhaps it is part of their understanding of what a sense of belonging is like. For example, if a person is lazy, the person is not only evaluated as being lazy, but also a sort of representative of her group. There are many possible groups, like religion, social class, etc, but the most common of which is race.

In fact, everything is often raced. If someone gets scolded for no apparent reason, it's likely a matter of race rather than personal hatred. Why? Because of social hierarchies around race within a specific context. If a person is being lazy, it's "obvious" that she's so because of her race.

Being highly individualistic, I find it bizarre that people seem to like to think in terms of groups. It would be more sensible to individually categorize people in accordance to their observed behaviors, rather than to attribute such behaviors to their respective groups. It is not only not scientifically sound, but also quite detrimental to one's well-being when the assumptions prove false.

Wall-E

Wall-E has nowhere near the depth of KungFu Panda. In fact, it seems to be a rather simple lover's show, with an intention to foster feelings of closeness and affection with its themes. Yet I admire the developers for it, because they chose to create a narrative that began with no typical dialogue. It takes quite some doing to make robots conduct a narrative entirely on emotive sounds and body language. Body language...on a robot? Wow!

The show has themes like sticking with your loved one through thick and thin, self-sacrifice and overall altruism. It also involves sticking to one's duties and the concept of rebirth. Unfortunately, such themes are really quite overdone. There is little to explicate on these, as just about everyone has been over these before.

What was impressive was the balletic symphonies of movement and sound throughout the show, creating the depth of visceral experience that is difficult to match in an animation. This is probably where it outshines KungFu Panda: The sheer elegance of the animation. Granted, these are two very differently themed shows and the differences show.

Overall, I found the narrative somewhat flat. Yet as a show it managed to hold together, and I especially liked the Nausicaa'esque end credits. I dare say the show deserves a 7/10, though I'm sure as a lover's show it deserves a clean 8.

4Bia

4Bia (pronounced phobia) is a thai horror film that comprises a bunch of short stories. Naturally, it's to be expected that the films are uniformly freaky and really quite scary. If anything, the images of the ghouls will stay with the viewer for quite some time to come. I know they stay with me. Still trying to banish these. I'll succeed...eventually.

I noted with some amusement at their skillful manipulation of the storylines such that they needed a minimal cast to pull it off. Unfortunately, it's not quite a narrative masterpiece, or even particularly innovative. The short stories make extensive use of really ghoulish makeup for the spooks, traditional in-your-face-with-loud-sound scare tactics and Stephen King'esque twisting of the real and the hallucination. That, and the bad CGI in a particular story. In fact, the narratives seemed quite disjointed due to the short story presentation, though there were efforts to tie things in by subtle details like newspaper headlines and references to the other stories. The use of deus ex for some scenes was disturbing, too. I can get it that supernatural events lead to really unusual goings on, but in a cinema narrative it really just seems that they cooked up a supernatural reason for some things to happen, without introducing the props first. That just makes things look unplanned. Sometimes, it also helps not to explicate overly much of the gory details, since at times the imagination can cook up far greater and more realistic horrors than any low budget CGI work possibly could.

To be fair to the film, I guess the rating would have to be spread over two areas. As a film, I don't think it deserves to have more than 6/10. However, I would highly rate the horror value of it, including the very progressive and inexorable build up towards the horror climax. For that, and its gruesome ghosts...I'd give it a very nice 9/10

Mini Movie Marathon

I had a most interesting impromptu mini movie marathon today. My friends asked me out to watch the thai horror flick 4Bia. Scary stuff. Then another of my friends asked me to watch a movie with him...immediately after 4Bia. So yeah, we went to watch Wall-E. Lovely contrast.

I guess it was somewhat interesting considering that I got the movie date right after the show...and at the same cineplex as the one before it. This probably also means that I'm going to be writing two reviews on the movies.

After the movies, I caught up with another friend, who brought her gal friend along. Talk about chained outings. I've never felt more productive (seriously!) since I basically managed to socialize with 3 groups of people in a single outing. Now that's a great way to compress outings so that time is not wasted in transit.

Eco Tourism

Eco Tourism is very nice when taken at face value: It showcases the delicate and beautiful face of nature, encouraging others to cherish and hopefully work towards protecting these natural places. In fact, it'd be far better were the people inclined to actually protect other places that may have endangered species that are not exactly pleasing to the eye.

While the lofty goals are admirable, I would question the benefits of eco tourism in the real world. For one, the eco tourist sites are often operated with profit in mind, with lip service and limited real protecting done at the site apart from preserving the lucrative attraction. Moreover, the high human traffic invariably brings with it pollution in the form of litter and vehicle fumes. That apart from the noise pollution and disruptive camera flashes from overzealous tourists.

More harm than good? Quite likely. Besides that, there is always the chance that tourists fail to understand what nature is truly like, being exposed exclusively to the beautiful sight of things. Fireflies twinkle, but they are still bugs...presumably the sort that little girls still fear after seeing the fairylike creatures flashing in the dark. Jungles are still rather dangerous, as are the beautiful rolling dunes of the desert. Perhaps it is also necessary to promote conservation as much for its own sake, as it is for the majesty of nature's power.

Geronimo And The Native Americans

I was reading a book on Geronimo, and could not help but be reminded of how the madness of people can easily spread to consume even the innocent. Fueled by the driving forces of expansionism and the gold rush, the Native Americans found themselves being pushed towards the brink. In effect, one had been usurped from one's rightful home, and assigned to a halfway house. All that, simply because someone powerful figured that hey...you just weren't "civilized".

I am saddened by what is by no means an isolated incident. Ever since humans invented the idea of warfare and conquest, peoples have been pushed from their own homes, only to have the invaders enjoy what was originally someone else's. Unfair? Yes. But such is the way of Darwinian civilizing. The stronger (militarily, usually) civilization often manages to drive the other out.

Perhaps there is no end to this madness, seeing as how the same greed and power madness pervades "civilization" to this day. Time and time again people have opted to claim for their own, things that never should have been theirs in a fair negotiation. At a state level, land theft is seldom resisted as firmly as that of the same at an individual level. There will always be noble spirits that will resist the tides of madness, but can they hold the tides back? Was Geronimo truly happy to have become something like a white man, if only for the good of his people?

Morality For The Masses

The great unwashed masses are fickle. That much is known of them. It is almost the one constant that binds them together. Without the aid of a constant, the masses constantly shift their focus and their values. It is the introduction of a fixed morality system that keeps them in line, since they have decided to subject themselves only to the morality that is prescribed to them.

What makes them free, then? By seeking the moral, they choose to bind themselves in an artificial prescribed morality that may not conform to any universal (if universal even exists!) morality that is extant. But if morality is not fixed, what is it that drives the masses that they can believe in something that may not even be true? This could explain the readiness to believe in deceptions: In their unwillingness to think, they prefer to live their private lies.

The Limits Of Power

Truly, with great power comes great responsibility. Apparently, that is even if one is unwilling to take that responsibility. The more powerful a person is, the greater her options in life. Things that were not options for less powerful folk now have to be considered. Will one be willing to flatten yonder mountain, or to preserve it? The very act of not flattening the mountain has effectively allowed its continued existence: Still a rather significant act!

In a way, a responsible person of power enjoys far less freedom than a comparable one with significantly less power. Every act has to be carefully considered for its repercussions in larger society, or at least the environment. It is the powerless who can choose to be less responsible: The powerful cannot help but be responsible for *something*.

It is therefore a strange thing when a powerless person yearns for a slice of great power, without being willing to accept responsibility for the exercising of the same. In trying to gain more freedom through ability, one simply loses freedom through responsibility. What a balance.

Away From Home

It is a strange feeling, that one just does not belong where one is. Some people call their places of origin home, simply on account that they came from there. Perhaps they are right, and they truly belong where they were placed. I cannot shake the feeling that I am not home, and that it is someplace else.

Sometimes I encounter various stimuli...sights, sounds, smells...something at random. It will remind me of the wilderness. Somewhere that never had humans, and where the rhythms of live were different. Yet I realize that the wilderness as it is now will not welcome me. It is different from the one I know. Alien. It bears a passing resemblance, yet is not the same.

I guess I will sit by the trees and the animals, thinking about the place that is no more. It almost seems like they understand, but perhaps that is an illusion as well. What else does it feel like, to be away from home?