Sunday, November 30, 2008
...
Every time I wonder why is life worth living so much, I remind myself that life is finite, then suddenly it's all ok.
on creativity
self doubt, fear, wonder, amazement, and various other things the word "creativity" may imply.
daily writing: something awful and pointless.
Being aware and conscious is a deeply strange and wonderful feeling to me. The evolution of consciousness fascinates me, and our awareness of who we are and what everything around us are and what it means to us are things that I find infinitely interesting and I don't think I will ever stop wondering about it.
Cultural awareness then, seems small in the grand scale of things.
In reading "Outliers" by Mr. Gladwell, I'm amazed by his ability to talk about cultural differences and stereotypes without sounding the least insulting or otherwise. I've always had a fear of offending people, mainly because I'm so damn good at it, I tend to piss off the wrong people. But that's besides the point. In his book Gladwell discusses the importance of cultural legacy; how where our ancestors grew up, how they were brought up and what they did for a living is more important in understanding our own behaviour then we initially thought.
This got me thinking about my own "Legacies" and how it is significant to what I do now.
Asian societies in general have a very high "power distance index",which basically means we respect those in power a lot more than cultures with a low PDI.
Example, my housemates are all older than me by 4 or 3 years. Thus I feel I'm somewhat in a subservient position whenever I have a discussion with them. I tend to mitigate my speeches, end up being very diplomatic, and sometimes I disgust myself how indecisive and insecure I end up sounding. Regardless of whether or not I may feel that way. I may think they're dicks sometimes but I don't come out and say it.
Am I being nice or am I just a pussy? Am I wrong for recognizing as maturity?
In a creative team, what would this mean?
If I am unable to see my partner as a peer, it's probably going to be difficult working with him.
Somehow it feels right for me to be acting this way, because whenever I try to overstep these boundaries I end up sounding like a prick.
After all these years, I still can't say what I mean without pissing someone off. Maybe it's a matter of how one views any given subject. Like being optimistic. I don't know.
*sigh*
*sigh*
*sigh*
Life is a strange conundrum. How can something so beautiful be so frustrating at the same time?
Cultural awareness then, seems small in the grand scale of things.
In reading "Outliers" by Mr. Gladwell, I'm amazed by his ability to talk about cultural differences and stereotypes without sounding the least insulting or otherwise. I've always had a fear of offending people, mainly because I'm so damn good at it, I tend to piss off the wrong people. But that's besides the point. In his book Gladwell discusses the importance of cultural legacy; how where our ancestors grew up, how they were brought up and what they did for a living is more important in understanding our own behaviour then we initially thought.
This got me thinking about my own "Legacies" and how it is significant to what I do now.
Asian societies in general have a very high "power distance index",which basically means we respect those in power a lot more than cultures with a low PDI.
Example, my housemates are all older than me by 4 or 3 years. Thus I feel I'm somewhat in a subservient position whenever I have a discussion with them. I tend to mitigate my speeches, end up being very diplomatic, and sometimes I disgust myself how indecisive and insecure I end up sounding. Regardless of whether or not I may feel that way. I may think they're dicks sometimes but I don't come out and say it.
Am I being nice or am I just a pussy? Am I wrong for recognizing as maturity?
In a creative team, what would this mean?
If I am unable to see my partner as a peer, it's probably going to be difficult working with him.
Somehow it feels right for me to be acting this way, because whenever I try to overstep these boundaries I end up sounding like a prick.
After all these years, I still can't say what I mean without pissing someone off. Maybe it's a matter of how one views any given subject. Like being optimistic. I don't know.
*sigh*
*sigh*
*sigh*
Life is a strange conundrum. How can something so beautiful be so frustrating at the same time?
Friday, November 28, 2008
What happens the more you know?
I saw this today.
"Perhaps most famously, (William) Gibson wrote Neuromancer without the aid of a computer, and indeed, without knowing much about computers at all. This ignorance led to a lesson that every scifi writer, fan and everybody else should learn: your knowledge might be crippling your imagination. Gibson was free to imagine virtual social networks and complex visual interfaces primarily because he had no reason to think otherwise." — Avi Abrams.
Since we are creatures of rules, a lot of us are compelled to follow rules the minute we learn them. But being creative involves breaking rules. Should we be more like William Gibson then?
Do it, and let imagination run wild.
Rules are very hard to break without good purpose.
It's something I struggle with everyday.
"Perhaps most famously, (William) Gibson wrote Neuromancer without the aid of a computer, and indeed, without knowing much about computers at all. This ignorance led to a lesson that every scifi writer, fan and everybody else should learn: your knowledge might be crippling your imagination. Gibson was free to imagine virtual social networks and complex visual interfaces primarily because he had no reason to think otherwise." — Avi Abrams.
Since we are creatures of rules, a lot of us are compelled to follow rules the minute we learn them. But being creative involves breaking rules. Should we be more like William Gibson then?
Do it, and let imagination run wild.
Rules are very hard to break without good purpose.
It's something I struggle with everyday.
Dreams, Outliers.
Yesterday night before I slept I told myself that I was going to keep a dream journal.
This morning I woke up having a vague recollection of the dream I had.
It had something to do with Veronica Mars.
I've been watching too much of that lately.
It's really good. You should try it.
Then I went to fry 2 eggs, eat 3 pieces of toast, some yogurt and a glass of juice.
Now I can't remember What I was supposed to be writing about.
How DO people keep dream journals anyway?
It just struck me that I had no idea what they're for.
Maybe later.
Funny how dreams almost wants us to forget them when we wake up.
**
My copy of "outliers" arrived yesterday or the day before.
I've been devouring it since. Malcolm Gladwell has been one of my favourite writers ever since I read "blink". I got the hardcover version for 7 pounds. yay.
Reading "Outliers", it's easy to think that success, big league, Microsoft, Apple kind of success is only possible by circumstance. Maybe it's what's the book about. I'll have to read further to judge, but it's been interesting, as his books or talks usually are.
Insights abundant.
Doesn't hurt that the man writes like a genius. Short, succinct, yet never lacking in details.
The bland cover belies it's true secrets. If you've enjoyed any of his previous books, give this one a try.
This morning I woke up having a vague recollection of the dream I had.
It had something to do with Veronica Mars.
I've been watching too much of that lately.
It's really good. You should try it.
Then I went to fry 2 eggs, eat 3 pieces of toast, some yogurt and a glass of juice.
Now I can't remember What I was supposed to be writing about.
How DO people keep dream journals anyway?
It just struck me that I had no idea what they're for.
Maybe later.
Funny how dreams almost wants us to forget them when we wake up.
**
My copy of "outliers" arrived yesterday or the day before.
I've been devouring it since. Malcolm Gladwell has been one of my favourite writers ever since I read "blink". I got the hardcover version for 7 pounds. yay.
Reading "Outliers", it's easy to think that success, big league, Microsoft, Apple kind of success is only possible by circumstance. Maybe it's what's the book about. I'll have to read further to judge, but it's been interesting, as his books or talks usually are.
Insights abundant.
Doesn't hurt that the man writes like a genius. Short, succinct, yet never lacking in details.
The bland cover belies it's true secrets. If you've enjoyed any of his previous books, give this one a try.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
wtf.
Keyword analysis showed me that at least 2 dudes came to my blog looking for "no arms no legs porn."
Why not believing in God helps me sleep at night.
The word God here refers to the monotheistic judeo-christian God. Polytheistic religious systems should require a different article as far as I'm concerned.
Say what you will about evidence, belief in God is still a choice. The 2 major camps I see in this debates are the hard-core atheists who believe He definitely doesn't exist, and the fundamentalists, whose positions are well documented in various ancient works of fiction authored by many, edited by more and translated by even more. Neither side, in my opinion provide enough sound evidence to prove or disprove the existence of He, and I for one used to believe there was no point in arguing. Until now that is.
So belief in God is simply a choice between having faith in the book that has been in print since the dawn of time, or siding with existential allegorical arguments that make sense, but don't necessary disprove God's being here in the grand scheme of things.
If you were a fence sitter like I was, you probably don't care anymore. The arguments have become old and boring, lost their punch like a catchy pop song overplayed, and the so called "evidence"... well they were never really sound or real to begin with and require a great suspension of disbelief to be taken seriously. Like bad science-fiction, only set in the past.
The question of which side of the fence I should fall into has remained largely in the back of my head for quite some time. Being in the middle forever didn't seem like a good option, and being on either seemed to be contradictory to what I thought I believed. Here's how I arrived at my decision.
Faith, by definition, is believing without doubt. By having faith in God, we accept that everything that happens in our lives is an act of God. Good or bad, God has a plan. His plan shall not be changed, and in the end it all will be well, no matter how terrible it may seem now. God has a plan. Always have, always will and always have been. Adhere to the plan and ye shall be welcomed into His Kingdom Come with arms wide open. Disobey and suffer in Hell for eternity.
Staunch atheists on the other hand, believe a variety of things, and since there is no specific scripture or book I can reference, it's rather difficult to provide a broad generalization and hit everyone's definition. One thing Atheists can all agree on however is that there is no, or probably is no God. Nada, zilch, ditto. God does not run lives, he answers no prayers, there is no plan, no heaven and no hell. John Lennon famously invited us to imagine, and imagine these people did. They imagined a lot of things previously thought to be simple truths and facts of life out of their system.
Looking at it from the "what's happening in the world" point of view instead of the traditional "what happens after I die" point of view, the answer is pretty clear. My choices were, believe in the existence of God and accept that all the wars, suffering and bullshit going on in the world is the work of God, and have faith in his plan, therefore admitting to myself that God, should he exist is a twisted, evil, seriously disturbed individual who desperately needs help, and has NO business whatsoever trying to run a Universe in which our planet is smaller than the size of a pixel on my screen, or accept that there probably is no God (I cannot, with all the conviction in my heart, say he definitely doesn't exist) and all the terrible things happening in the world are a result of human doing and therefore admitting to myself that we human beings are the most revolting creatures ever to walk the earth. We might someday destroy for fuck's sake.
The problem with the former option is this. It really doesn't have any room for other interpretations (it wouldn't be called religion if it did) despite what many "religious" people have told me. The book's the book. It could be taken any number of ways but it probably wasn't written to be used that way. At best it's an outdated moral compass that proclaims it has the answer to the human condition, the recipe for salvation, at worst a mind-control tool. A very successful one at that. Guiness Book of World Records like.
Given the choice between Deity fallibility and human fallibility I happily chose the latter. The other kind is just too scary to think about. Given the choice, I'd rather not believe in God and than believe in him. Because if he were there, he's probably not doing his job, or not there. At all.
That's my argument. It's not much different from what has been said before, but at least I've said it. If you've humored me this long I thank you, this really wasn't for you, but please accept my thanks anyway. In this overcrowded, overloaded society that we live in, I really wonder what keeps me sane.
Say what you will about evidence, belief in God is still a choice. The 2 major camps I see in this debates are the hard-core atheists who believe He definitely doesn't exist, and the fundamentalists, whose positions are well documented in various ancient works of fiction authored by many, edited by more and translated by even more. Neither side, in my opinion provide enough sound evidence to prove or disprove the existence of He, and I for one used to believe there was no point in arguing. Until now that is.
So belief in God is simply a choice between having faith in the book that has been in print since the dawn of time, or siding with existential allegorical arguments that make sense, but don't necessary disprove God's being here in the grand scheme of things.
If you were a fence sitter like I was, you probably don't care anymore. The arguments have become old and boring, lost their punch like a catchy pop song overplayed, and the so called "evidence"... well they were never really sound or real to begin with and require a great suspension of disbelief to be taken seriously. Like bad science-fiction, only set in the past.
The question of which side of the fence I should fall into has remained largely in the back of my head for quite some time. Being in the middle forever didn't seem like a good option, and being on either seemed to be contradictory to what I thought I believed. Here's how I arrived at my decision.
Faith, by definition, is believing without doubt. By having faith in God, we accept that everything that happens in our lives is an act of God. Good or bad, God has a plan. His plan shall not be changed, and in the end it all will be well, no matter how terrible it may seem now. God has a plan. Always have, always will and always have been. Adhere to the plan and ye shall be welcomed into His Kingdom Come with arms wide open. Disobey and suffer in Hell for eternity.
Staunch atheists on the other hand, believe a variety of things, and since there is no specific scripture or book I can reference, it's rather difficult to provide a broad generalization and hit everyone's definition. One thing Atheists can all agree on however is that there is no, or probably is no God. Nada, zilch, ditto. God does not run lives, he answers no prayers, there is no plan, no heaven and no hell. John Lennon famously invited us to imagine, and imagine these people did. They imagined a lot of things previously thought to be simple truths and facts of life out of their system.
Looking at it from the "what's happening in the world" point of view instead of the traditional "what happens after I die" point of view, the answer is pretty clear. My choices were, believe in the existence of God and accept that all the wars, suffering and bullshit going on in the world is the work of God, and have faith in his plan, therefore admitting to myself that God, should he exist is a twisted, evil, seriously disturbed individual who desperately needs help, and has NO business whatsoever trying to run a Universe in which our planet is smaller than the size of a pixel on my screen, or accept that there probably is no God (I cannot, with all the conviction in my heart, say he definitely doesn't exist) and all the terrible things happening in the world are a result of human doing and therefore admitting to myself that we human beings are the most revolting creatures ever to walk the earth. We might someday destroy for fuck's sake.
The problem with the former option is this. It really doesn't have any room for other interpretations (it wouldn't be called religion if it did) despite what many "religious" people have told me. The book's the book. It could be taken any number of ways but it probably wasn't written to be used that way. At best it's an outdated moral compass that proclaims it has the answer to the human condition, the recipe for salvation, at worst a mind-control tool. A very successful one at that. Guiness Book of World Records like.
Given the choice between Deity fallibility and human fallibility I happily chose the latter. The other kind is just too scary to think about. Given the choice, I'd rather not believe in God and than believe in him. Because if he were there, he's probably not doing his job, or not there. At all.
That's my argument. It's not much different from what has been said before, but at least I've said it. If you've humored me this long I thank you, this really wasn't for you, but please accept my thanks anyway. In this overcrowded, overloaded society that we live in, I really wonder what keeps me sane.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The list.
Fairy Liquid
-Let it pile up, you'll spend last time anyway.
PrittStick
-Nothing special, just good on paper.
AnnSummers
-Contribute to the population problem sexily.
Subway
-custom-made to specifications.
Extra chewing gum
-So you taste nicer.
Best Beginnings
-Why using your nipples can make your kid smarter.
-Let it pile up, you'll spend last time anyway.
PrittStick
-Nothing special, just good on paper.
AnnSummers
-Contribute to the population problem sexily.
Subway
-custom-made to specifications.
Extra chewing gum
-So you taste nicer.
Best Beginnings
-Why using your nipples can make your kid smarter.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Smallville
Is a good show, well now... season 8 of it...the past episodes.. that I've watched. Have been... quite. enjoyable.
Despite how bland, boring and frustrating Clark Kent is. I cheer every time I see Green Arrow, Mercer, Doomsday, or any other character come one screen.
How can a show with such an unlikable main character be so good?
Nevermind.
Can't have less Clark, but please have more everyone else.
Oh the doomsday origin is also pretty sweet. Coming along nicely.
Despite how bland, boring and frustrating Clark Kent is. I cheer every time I see Green Arrow, Mercer, Doomsday, or any other character come one screen.
How can a show with such an unlikable main character be so good?
Nevermind.
Can't have less Clark, but please have more everyone else.
Oh the doomsday origin is also pretty sweet. Coming along nicely.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)