Of Life

If anything could happen, subjected such by quantum states, would it not be preferable to accept leading a happy life than an unhappy one? That is, more to the point, if we hold life experience as subjective (because if it were objective, then we would be all so uniform as nullifying the point of individuality), we can imprint our will to the life we lead, to the courses we take. Doing otherwise would simply contradict some basic facts about metaphysical freedom insinuated throughout human history as individual attributes determinant for one's existence (most notably Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Sartre, to name a few).

Now it is possible to imagine such actions and situation that go above our individual will. True. That point holds to the separation between will of the mind and will of the...well, our physical self. It is perfectly unarguable to decide that we cannot lift a piano. On the other hand, it is completely arguable to confront your boss with trivial language and resign. Don't say you don't have a choice, you can't do it. It is, simply put, the lack of will. And lacking will might as well deprive you of some human defining attributes granting you others in return. Cowardice is a natural feature that shouldn't shame you of possessing. The bad part in such an approach is that negating reality (thus, what you can and cannot do) might be evidence of some pathological issues that you need sorted out. I would recommend suicide, unless you want results deriving from the removal of your frontal lobe. Hell, inland fantasy is quite common these days, take advantage of its care-free environment.

And thus I'm brought circumstantially to another point in this discussion. Homo sapiens evolution vs. natural evolution (I'm derogating the term in order for it to apply to aforementioned species). As we see everywhere in the natural universe plainly outside artificial human mastering, nature favours the most powerful, the gifted, the most beautiful, but as seeing how less is more, only the fit survive. The human universe is by these standards, something quite odd and peculiar to a natural endeavour.

It has come to my attention that in the past few years, genetical diseases, of which most neurological, have become more numerous and have begun to affect a bigger chunk of the world's population. Apologists may argue quite effectively that this is because the increasing population. I'd agree, up to a point. Of course, I haven't exactly done my homework in the sense that I know not the exact numbers. However it is quite obvious that these afflictions are not mere random things and not because of the human population growth. Rather it is because our evolutive course has taken a devolutive path, different from that of nature. Instead of disposing of those unable to take care of themselves, that would never in their life bring any plus to the society they live in or the species as a whole. Quite oppositely, they would waste resources for no reason and live for no purpose other than the feelings of those close to them.

Now I'm exempting from my accusations the old and crippled for they might've done something for society in their time and deserve some sort of reward, as in nature, nothing is created and destroyed, but is perpetual. Even so, clinging for the life of some disabled freak that could never live on his own, would never live up to its human potential and that anywhere else would die because of the practical inability to LIVE, I find it pathetic and a downturn for the human species as a whole, as it allows, within the confines of societal development and mores, to perpetuate genes and behaviours detracting from true evolution. You may think me to be wrong, but think this: if I were as my topic, I wouldn't be here writing, now would I? I would most probably be trying to breathe on my own and be fed as a retarded specimen that would most probably be forced to perpetuate his existence one way or another, thus creating even more problems for future generations to deal with.

As we don't have enough genetic mutations from viruses on our hands, we need more genetic mutation from bad breeding. Think about it, you wouldn't breed a diseased dog with a prize-winner pedigree one, would you? Think about that. I'll think about the future.

Ideas for Personal Motto

Expect your dreams. If that doesn't happen, it's not like nothing will at all. Depression, drugs and death are an answer too. If final, of no consequence. Nature is ever-changing, nothing ever ends, paths lead...

Fear nothing. After all a fear implies its own demise in the process, and if you can accept said demise as part of the quantum probability of events, then you can go easily through anything with the same state of consciousness.

I am free. Because I can think thoughts and express them without caring at all for social problematic of ethics and behavioural bonds. More to be discusses on an eventual topic of existentialism.

Love. Infinitely, no matter if its only yourself or some object or an ideal. Find it in awe, and if you can expand the field, all the more happy you might become.

Always look forward. As it is said, those who wishfully think about time traveling to the past have a serious if not pathological issue in dealing with the present and reality. And if you can't at least perceive reality beyond the box of movability, then you might as well have no future to content your imagination with.

Always allow yourself to be surprised. You live in a quantum universe, so take advantage of it.

Others to follow shortly thereafter (within one year)

Punishment and Compensation

We all know that in any society at any given moment, the inability or failure to act as the majority would automatically draw a punishment, for many centuries death, more recent, legal punishment, fines or imprisonment. The major issue I find with this line of reasoning is expectation, and I further divide this expectation into two categories.

Firstly, the argument derives itself from the expectation of normality and its imposition on any individual or group that would divert from a set line of guidelines by the authorities that would legitimise their action as either divine or from a legal-rational point of view, which holds close to consensual view of democracy, i.e., we all sometime agreed to do this, so it has to be done. The issue of state origins will be discussed at a further date, however, since in a modern society we can redefine the relationship with the authority mediums (at least in theory), it's fair enough to say that we can start agreeing again on whichever form of government and type of rules and regulations we may want, discarding the majority dictatorship side of democracy.

So getting back to the question at hand, the right to derive normalisation legitimacy lies not within the back minds of oligarchies that have a fictitious sense of morality through their intimate recollections of the divine or their own diamond-sparkling soul. I guess that since we say that the more virtuous between a man who has money and is boasting and another that has none and is in want, is quite really the one that does not care at all for the possession of money or derivatives, then we can fairly assume that between men who think themselves as moral and those who are thought as immoral the more righteous would be at least the ones amoral, indefinable and unbiased.

The second matter is focused on the expectation by society of individuals and groups to act in such a way as to do otherwise would recede into punishment, and is partly inferred from the first argument. It should be acted under the presupposition that everyone, since assessed as 'equal', would therefore have an either biased or relative position on any occurrence that would affect them directly or indirectly in any way, then it's quite possible to reason a practical measure and effective keep of normalisation within society: the punishment of those who are alienated from this sense and the compensation, rightly so and equated to their own contributions of those in alignment with the said regulations and norms at any rate imposed.

I should not be understood incorrectly, I do not sanction the use of any societal normalisation techniques imposed by anyone on anybody. I do however mitigate for an effective use of the social apparatus for a better cohesion among the units and sprockets of a society, since the former cannot be avoided, apparently, at all. And one more commentary, I'm obliging the legal-rational use of this approach, for all that are 'equal in front of the law' so that the mechanism of individual and groups can move smoothly towards even an ounce of progress, not the oligarhical-type system, within cliques and sects that are more extremist-based that favour a machinery based on individual control, manipulation and fear induction.

Children

Yes, the answer to your question is 'yes', I do hate children.

There are so many things I hate about them I could never think them all to fill the space below in this post of a blog. However, I shall attempt to name some, given my encounter with many such specimens, the last whom, today, took my seat in the train and had me standing for over 10 minutes. But enough about me.

Children are annoying little pests that for some obscure reason everyone thinks they're cute. Well, they're not. They're too common to be cute. And even if there are objects that exclude themselves from my observations (see flowers), at least flowers smell lovely and they don't wipe out my senses with pointless screaming, bruises and abhorring fluids that spill out of them as if it were the waste of NYC. Plants could do that if I'd be in a fantasy tropical world. I'm not.

Children are permitted anything, drawing from the fact that they're considered so cute. Of course, if their behaviourism is found in adults we would most likely call them psychotic criminals soaked in delusions of grandeur and absolute egotism. Because any child will damage animate and inanimate objects, will consider himself the center of the world and at all times, they will always consider only their needs and them being met. A bit exclusive for a societal civilization.

Everyone thinks having babies is a miracle and the most wondrous thing. Well, it's not. Moreover, it's closer to being the most common thing any two people can do either than eating, sleeping, talking and having sex. It also does not require a certain amount of intelligence to do it either. Everyone thinks they're good parents and well, they're not. A biological state is not the same as a psychological state. Being able to make babies doesn't necessarily mean you'll ever be an adequate parent. It's the same as considering that if dolphins have a biological organ named lung, they're quite well adapted to living as land mammals. Guess again. Bad parenting is common enough to ward enough sociopaths and violent criminals when they turn to adulthood.

Not forgetting babies, they're also not cute and adorable. They're organisms that mostly resemble some parasites and whose sole function is to shit, eat and sleep. Not very entertaining. Not very miraculous. Just the circle of life. Get over it.

Children also have a speech problem. When they speak, they do it poorly more often than not and they're indulged by their parents and everyone around them to continue acting stupidly. Thus, being given such a liberty without a constant correction leads to severe speech impediments (and I'm not talking physical, I'm talking dumb-ass animals). When children speak like this, it's considered cute. When grown-ups can barely talk literate and read it's sad. It should be sad from the first word for we are bringing up these nuisances into the people of tomorrow. Pardon, the illiterates of today. I'd solve the problem conditioning them like Pavlov with his dog. If the child does not pronounce my name or the object of his desire rightly then I shall ignore him till he'll condition himself to do it. It's survival 101.

One of my earliest ideas about children was that they should be state-raised or something so that at least they'll grow up, well, brainwashed. Reconsidering, it thought it rather cruel and pointless from a sociological and psychological standpoint, since children need their parents. Facing such a dilemma I could only suggest making most public places of adult interest only (and I mean office-buildings, postal offices, banks and whatnot) bar the presence of children.

Of course, I cannot forget the parents that enable their children to act in every possible manner, as an expression of their early years and time of experimentation. For this purpose, they defend his actions to death. However, it is interesting to note how they will sue about everything that the child will eventually hurt himself with. Since most children cannot read, you cannot say that they should've read the sign where it said "Caution. Closing door hurts if you put your hand in it while operating." Naturally, this is just the parents' way of avoiding any responsability they claim they inherrently have over the child while at the same time robbing him of his experimentation's results. For how should we know fire burns if we do not put our hand through it? Some people are just disturbed...

And why do they have to be dressed like fantasy idiots? Does Dostoyevsky need inspiration for miniatural figures trying to copy on their parents' ludicrous hidden needs?

Another problem with the speech and behaviour of children is that I'm expected by the community to lower myself to their standards and accept offense and brutalization, both physical and intellectual, as something normal. This can be easily avoided considering two aspects of the matter: firstly, I should not have to lower myself to speaking and trying painfully to understand what they're saying, because I'm not thinking about the prospect of joining the mentally challenged of small age society, rather they should be striving to speak correctly since they will eventually join our society that does not abide by such notions of cuteness. Seeing an adult speaking like a child and you're first thought is asylum. Secondly, children have short-term memory and my punishment of their actions would either act conditionally, as discussed above or repress subconsciously for years to come. The second probability is not entirely faulty since it will enable them to stave off sick people such as myself that would treat them wrongly and/or ignore them to a pathological stance. Eventually, it will lead to a more psychological-disease free environment for the future adults.

In conclusion, I found out that I do not hate children, just everything they represent and manage to do without being blamed. For this is our goal in life, to be egotistical and irresponsible. As for the children as ideas, I like them. We need to procreate from time to time, don't we?

Money as Debt

Sad, for such a civilization...

Money as debt

Arithmetic, Population and Energy

No text, just a link to a video that should make you think...

Arithmetic, Population and Energy

Eden Lake

I myself have always been a fan of horror movies, yet not in the sense that many of you would appreciate it. So a distinction was necessary to classify said movies into something that would be clearer for me in terms of technique, purpose, setting and finally, why not, detail. It is useful to understand that these ideal types often intermix.

In this effect, my categorization of horror movies goes as follows:

- gore horror - obviously meaning sheer detail and mostly going with stupid direction, with little to no time being spent in the artistic department; examples of such movies would most likely include the teen flicks that sprung in the late 90s early 00s: much quantity, less quality. It also relies on a twist ending that usually downgrades the whole production. This one contrasts with the psychological type in terms of detail and technique.

- active horror - this mainly is in stark opposition with the passive one, most obviously and it is particularized by a constant hide and seek from the beginning till the end, the details alternating from most to less with a very diffuse peak moment. Examples include most Japanese horrors, Haute tension, The Mist, Janghwa, Hongryeon, À l'intérieur, 1408 and many more.

- passive horror - the main feat of this type of horror film is the building up of suspense with discrete detailing up till a moment of explosion (in this respect in collides with the last type) where events can chain themselves beautifully and to great effect, even if half, or 3/4 of the film was under a slow pace. Examples include [Rec], The Ring, Ôdishon (which I recommend to all horror movie aficionados as being one of the sickest and having one of the most detailed scenes of torture ever seen on the big screen), El orfanato, The Descent, Honogurai mizu no soko kara.

- psychological horror - and why should I hide it, my own personal favourite relies heavily on the power it exercises over the mind of the viewer and its capacity to bend reality. Detail is minimal, if any, the element of horror being sustained by character development, background and overwhelming suspense. The final twist is usually exceptionally done and deviates only slightly from an otherwise detail-free environment. Examples include The Blair Witch Project, Tesis, Saint Ange, The Others, Kairo, El espinazo del diablo.

Of course, this classification does not apply to most interwoven genres such as parody, comedy, action or sci-fi, but they do help in standardizing the genre. Also is to be noted that many such horror films borrow from two or even three of the types described above. Few are pure.

Now, Eden Lake was in line with the rising horror industry in the UK, following on the path of such movies as the aforementioned The Descent, 28 Days Later... and Dog Soldiers. It is brutal, yet effective and doesn't give away to popular deconstruction, but it builds itself up and manages to paint a violent reality of Britain. The cliches don't mess it up, rather they add to its goal of establishing itself as a proper, driven horror movie.

8/10

Fat Santa

So Christmas came and with it, the usual hyperbolic mass hysteria associated with stray feelings, self-pitiful gift-giving and receiving, and my all time favourite, a tightly, nicely, gently wrapped present with green shiny paper and red strings that curl full of bullshit.

Now one may wonder why is it that one of the most important holidays in the world (muslims can say whatever, I know they give each other bombs this time of the year and wish to each other "happy christian killing") relies so heavily on lies, deceit and consumerist indoctrination. Well, it's easy, we don't live in a non-profit world, and somebody's gotta exploit the weak minds of the many. We all are very much aware that Santa Claus is fiction, yes he doesn't exist (and I'm not going to touch religion just yet, however for your information, I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster) and still is very much the cover for everything that compounds this period of the holidays. Poor children are duped into thinking he exists, parents want to be children and sick people...well, they're just sick. Santa Claus is the upfront man.

So here we have a consumerist driven holiday that has as a basis for its existence the greedy imagination of corporatists. You may think, hell, it's the holidays, it's a time of giving and loving and whatnot. Well, wrong. Ask ANY CEO (preferably not in front of the cameras) of a major company that profits from Christmas and he'll tell you plain and simple: it's all about the money. Now a sweet thing is that in Japan Christmas is considered a holiday of the kids and of lovers. Yet the Japanese aren't the best example of anti-consummerism since they have a frenetic impulse of intoxicating themselves with wretched western imports.

So there you have it, a campaign of money wasting for things we don't need and can't afford (and you wonder why is there a financial crisis...well, d'oh) sponsored by a being that doesn't exist taking merciless advantage of the helpless kids and the self-pitying adults.

Therefore I shall try and celebrate Saturnalia, at least they had a backbone of honesty and any bullshit about it, you knew and was never hidden in pompous advertising about "how great the time of cheerful joy is". So cheerful that the suicide rate increases over Christmas (no, it's not a myth, although many suggest it decreased overtime, that's just because people imagined that going alone isn't the answer and taking some few with you will be just what Santa wants of us)

You think about that. I'll do something else.

Knife Edge

Quite some time passed, I admit, since I last saw an enthralling thriller. Knife Edge is just what this forgotten genre needed. A good thriller is hard to come by, that's just it. I can't even remember my last enjoyable one. Most of them now blend with horror and indulge in such clichees that you can't separate consumerism from sheer stupidity.

Of course, the first 20 minutes showed us the limits of the director and the acting was a bit sketchy at times. Then again, that's what I remember about classic thrillers. Deep characters, although mostly bi-dimensional, that suffer through a linear story until some twists that confront the viewer to shift allegiances take place.

I really liked Nathalie Press' performance in My Summer of Love and here she is a credible mother and new wife in a past-haunted (not The Shining-haunted) mansion, reminding us of Rosemary. Sure, all in all it was without originality and it didn't manage to expand from its genre. But the cinematography is excellent, the story, to use a line from the movie "dickensian", and it doesn't look to rely on artifices such as gratuitous nudity or butchering violence. It just delivers.

7/10

Awareness

I was at this conference where the term of awareness came up. The particular case was related to AIDS and cancer. I'm going to streamline it as usual and make the whole thing seem much more important than it is. Yes, it is.

The term 'cancer awareness' came up. This struck me more than odd. In what way could you ever be unaware of the fact that you have terminal cancer (yes, they all/most are) or of its causes. Cause let's face it, it's not AIDS; you cannot be aware that unprotected sex, drug abuse or whatever sort of blood or seminal fluid contacts can lead to that disease. Unless you start stamping everything as "potentially cancerous", from meat to electronics and radioactive material. And it won't matter, people will still eat meat, use electronics and get radiation poisoning because they were unaware.

There is to make you aware that you might get cancer (unless some limited information, such as the aforementioned radioactive poisoning, prolonged sun exposure et caetera) and once you have it, unlike AIDS, that until something goes really wrong with you, you won't know it, cancer is visible, painful and most certainly always leads to death.

So can you be made aware of the fact that you have cancer? Yes, it's called having it. You don't need much testing done for that. Can you be made aware of the things that cause cancer? Only if you list everything dangerous. Otherwise, no.

It's sad and I may be insensitive. But the real insensitive people are those that like to play with words and programs and organizations and whatnot. If I got AIDS tomorrow, I'd probably go for the medication, and try and lead a more careful life. I might die, might also not. If I got cancer, well, then it gets tough. I'll probably focus more on something more productive for posterity. But I will die. And I don't want to vomit 10 times a day while in horrific pain just to delay it. I want to go smooth. Will I be aware that I have cancer? Yes. Will I have been made aware by anything of how I got cancer or of the fact I have by outside influences. Most unlikely.

Hence my advice is live, happily first, and healthy, if you can. Political correctness is just wrong (and I'll touch that in another subject), why use words that dehumanize the human experiences? Fuck awareness or the next thing you'll know is them telling you to be aware that you're alive.

Representation

Representative democracy - now I don't know about you but whenever I hear this compound form of type of government I invariably start laughing inside - the term sounds so absurd, that it would be even more obvious if I were to put it next to another fine streak of human deception: democratic dictatorship; yes, that's how some of the communist countries officially name themselves. It's just plain hilarious.

Let's first consider representation. What are the elected officials representing? The popular interest? Oh really? Can you provide data as to an official voting against his interests just to satisfy people with whom he won't have to deal with for another 4 years (unless you live in a country where the recall function is implemented, which is rather nice)? In effect, everyone is egotistical, and everyone votes in their own self-interest. The difference between the official that is indulging himself in power and the people is that the latter have the counter-balancing of democratic system, i.e. even if everyone votes in their own interest, the most with the common interest win by majority rule. Democracy is simple: winner takes it all.

And that brings me to the second part of my commentary (couldn't really call it an argument now, could I?). It concerns the matter of democracy with a hint of representative system. No election can be representative and democratic at the same time. Sure, democracy exist in all tiers of decision, even in an oligarchy of 10, where 6 decide against 4; to this effect, if you claim the representative aspect, one vote (of the official) cannot equate the diversity of the magnitude in which he was elected (since he represents ALL of the citizens in the respective constituency, not only those that elected him). On the other side, if you argue the democratic aspect, it would totally conflict the representative facet: democracy compels you to always respect the majority rule, regardless of votes wasted. Dictatorship of majority.

And finally I come to the wittgensteinein angle of my argument (yes, now I can call it that). Democracy is a label applied to practical measures and undertakings of any construct (political - regime, social - corporation) to infer it legitimacy in front of those that should actually recognise their value: the populace, and more particularly, the majority. By repeatedly telling the masses they live in a democracy, they give up their undeniable democratic essence to a rather distorted minority that basically governs (or leads) outside the ethic ground they uphold. On that account, 'democracy' and notably 'representative democracy' are make-believe terms in the same scope as you would consider 'democratic dictatorship'. Funny thing is, the roles are reversed, and democracy actually is dictatorial.

Therefore, a small practical example requires to be satisfied: consider a community of 2001 individuals (I'll discuss direct democracy and its implications in the modern world another time, so let's skip the "oh, but..."). Individual no. 1 has to die, doesn't matter why, he just has to. So, as in a true, pure democratic state, the matter is subjected to vote. 999 vote against his death while the others 1001 vote for. That is his death sentence. Now, among the arguments you'd shout against this is that every life is priceless. I agree. You also say that we are all equal. By using simple logic and mathematics, 1001 priceless unique lives are decisively more than 999 (say even 1000, if the guy about to die can vote on the matter). And that's the proof of democracy. If you feel the need to name your system, please don't perjure the name of such a beautiful concept. Democracy is not representative. It's not open for debate. It's absolute, winner takes it all.

Vox populi :)

High School

An enthralling story about the friendship between 7 guys that goes awry as each of them discovers themselves with respect to their relationship which ends up taking unexpected turns reminding of the chaos theory.

Jiu jiang feng (Winds of September) delves into a common subject for most of us, the seemly endless times of high school (here also against the backdrop of chinese communism, however not as harsh as most imagine) when we'd get into trouble, got reprimanded, laughed it off and do it all over again. Two of the boys are sophomores, two juniors and three seniors, the latter not affording many more screw ups, or they risk expulsion. Yen is with Yun, however he is handsome and likes to flirth with other girls. Tang tutores Yun and secretly loves her, whilst covering the mishaps of Yen. And from here you can imagine any possible scenario; without spoiling, I shall nevertheless say that when one of the blocks of this friendship falls, it all comes down eventually, like a domino. The boys don't meet anymore, get agressive with one another, even lie to evade a police record. The unity goes away.

Remembering the high school years, let's value those gatherings, the schemes we always connived, the way friendships covered for our faults and the satisfaction you got that, even if things went bad, at least we were all in it together. And let's laugh.

I rate the movie 9/10

History

So a few weeks back, I had the chance of seeing Purple Violets, a witty romantic film which interested me not only because of the cast (Selma Blair, Patrick Wilson, Edward Burns) and the literate-connected theme (which was more used as a push-block) but for a historical genealogy of sentiments.

Now I know some of you may disagree with this rather pragmatic approach and argue that love is a spur of the moment, spontaneity act and you would not be mistaken. However, love is also something you can best comment empirically, i.e. after it is over, an empirical argument which you cannot displace for another experience's convenience. Hence, feelings cannot be rationalized but they can be valued upon an occurrence.

Getting to my point, after much pondering, I came to the idea that feelings are stronger and the relationship is more stable (by which I mean, anything you may understand through 'stable', be it hack'n'slash lunches and violent evenings on the kitchen table) when the partners know each other longer. Basically, a relationship has more chances of success the longer the two lovers have experienced life as a couple or as emotionally-distinct individuals, for it is experience which binds their feelings and during rough times, it is that which they have lived through a constant reference for stability and happiness. And it will be harder to really know a person as time goes by, since there will be less of each other's lives you have seen, got to know, experienced, got to love, and there will be no reference to a past that would alleviate pain; rather, it would only heighten the emotional disequilibrium.

So my point is, give history a chance.

Oh, and my rating for the movie is 7/10