Since I've just finished uni and am free from study for a while, I've taken the opportunity to finally start reading through a pile of books that has been steadily growing over the year. I started writing an entry last week after watching My Sister's Keeper and being intrigued by the questions it gave rise to; what does it mean to be alive, to have rights and be in control of one's physical self? What risk is there in intentionally 'planning' a human genetically in any way? Would these particular people start to represent a new class of human? If humanity, or the planet, should be hit by some sort of epidemic or natural disaster, would it be possible - would we go to such lengths - as to 'create' people capable of surviving such conditions to repopulate the earth afterwards?
So many questions - yet it all still leads to the idea that perhaps people are gambling their luck a little too much.
And today, I finished reading 'I Am Nujood, Age 10 and Divorced'. I highly recommend this book; an inspiring true story that provides a great insight into Yemeni culture and the oppression of women.
It all leads to a simple question for me though (and this is definitely wishful thinking.) As so many people say, you should finish one assignment before moving onto the next. How different would the world be if, instead of delving into every new possible technology we can get our hands on, we take time to ensure the world is operating as it should be before introducing even more pieces to the puzzle.
Let me finish with this:
Pretend that the world had never invented currency; communities existed through bartering, and everyone was able to get what they needed through simple trading of goods and services.
Think of the issues that wouldn't exist (or at least to a much lesser extent) if money wasn't involved.
How does money really effect the world?
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
Bee Victorious
Aerodynamically, it should be impossible for bees to fly.
This was, in actual fact, the belief until a more recent scientific study seeking to explain how the apparently impossible flight of bees occurs every day. (For more information on this study please visit http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/12772)
Bees are responsible for pollination. Without bees, plants would find it much more difficult to reproduce.
The importance of bees:
Bee pollination of crops, something that most farmers rely heavily on, is responsible for as much as 30% of the US food supply. That doesn’t even consider what they mean for the rest of the world...
Just to raise the point even higher, here’s a list of the crops etc that require pollination from bees entirely or at least partially: Alfalfa, buckwheat, clover, Apple, apricot, avocado, berry, cherry, citrus, kiwi, mango, passion fruit, peach, pear, persimmon, plum, prune, Almond, cashew, chestnut, coconut, macadamia, cotton, flax, rape, safflower, soybeans, sunflower, asparagus, broccoli, brussel sprouts, carrots, cauliflower, celery, Chinese cabbage, collard, cucumber, dill, eggplant, garlic, kale, kohlrabi, leek, lima beans, mustard, onion, parsley, pepper, pumpkin, radish, rutabaga, squash, turnip, beans, cantaloupe, cucumbers, muckmelon, pumpkin, squash, watermelon, eggplant, lima beans, peppers. (and yes, some of these I haven’t even heard of...)
....To think this is all carried out by a small, rather fragile looking group (rather large in number, although decreasing) of insects.
Even scarier, to think that the majority of the credit for the diversity and health of the biosphere goes to a creature which, apparently, should find it impossible to even travel to carry out the job...
So when it comes down to it, it’d be fair to say our lives are based on something which shouldn’t be possible. Pretty amazing, huh?
What’s the point of my telling you this? It’s not about existence, not about survival; it’s about dreams. As Mary Kay Ash once said;
“Aerodynamically, the bumble bee shouldn’t be able to fly, but the bumble bee doesn’t know it so it goes on flying anyway.”
What led me to think about all this? The fact that recently I’ve discovered how awesome bees are, combined with my thoughts, and a brief discussion today, about people achieving their dreams, and how, funnily enough, bees indirectly enable this.
The power of thought and mind is such a huge thing when it comes to facing the challenges between people and their dreams. Unfortunately, unlike the unknowing bees, knowledge brings with it the power of disbelief; we are each our own worst critic, and our disbelief in ourself is the biggest obstacle we have to overcome.
This is an awesome quote as well;
“Most people live and die with their music still unplayed. They never dare to try.”
If people didn’t have dreams; goals; a vision; what would be the point of life? It is the people who have followed their passions and chased their dreams who have, in the past, made the biggest differences in the world, however big or small those dreams have been.
Take inspiration from the bee; ignore anyone or anything that says your dream is unattainable.
This was, in actual fact, the belief until a more recent scientific study seeking to explain how the apparently impossible flight of bees occurs every day. (For more information on this study please visit http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/12772)
Bees are responsible for pollination. Without bees, plants would find it much more difficult to reproduce.
The importance of bees:
Bee pollination of crops, something that most farmers rely heavily on, is responsible for as much as 30% of the US food supply. That doesn’t even consider what they mean for the rest of the world...
Just to raise the point even higher, here’s a list of the crops etc that require pollination from bees entirely or at least partially: Alfalfa, buckwheat, clover, Apple, apricot, avocado, berry, cherry, citrus, kiwi, mango, passion fruit, peach, pear, persimmon, plum, prune, Almond, cashew, chestnut, coconut, macadamia, cotton, flax, rape, safflower, soybeans, sunflower, asparagus, broccoli, brussel sprouts, carrots, cauliflower, celery, Chinese cabbage, collard, cucumber, dill, eggplant, garlic, kale, kohlrabi, leek, lima beans, mustard, onion, parsley, pepper, pumpkin, radish, rutabaga, squash, turnip, beans, cantaloupe, cucumbers, muckmelon, pumpkin, squash, watermelon, eggplant, lima beans, peppers. (and yes, some of these I haven’t even heard of...)
....To think this is all carried out by a small, rather fragile looking group (rather large in number, although decreasing) of insects.
Even scarier, to think that the majority of the credit for the diversity and health of the biosphere goes to a creature which, apparently, should find it impossible to even travel to carry out the job...
So when it comes down to it, it’d be fair to say our lives are based on something which shouldn’t be possible. Pretty amazing, huh?
What’s the point of my telling you this? It’s not about existence, not about survival; it’s about dreams. As Mary Kay Ash once said;
“Aerodynamically, the bumble bee shouldn’t be able to fly, but the bumble bee doesn’t know it so it goes on flying anyway.”
What led me to think about all this? The fact that recently I’ve discovered how awesome bees are, combined with my thoughts, and a brief discussion today, about people achieving their dreams, and how, funnily enough, bees indirectly enable this.
The power of thought and mind is such a huge thing when it comes to facing the challenges between people and their dreams. Unfortunately, unlike the unknowing bees, knowledge brings with it the power of disbelief; we are each our own worst critic, and our disbelief in ourself is the biggest obstacle we have to overcome.
This is an awesome quote as well;
“Most people live and die with their music still unplayed. They never dare to try.”
If people didn’t have dreams; goals; a vision; what would be the point of life? It is the people who have followed their passions and chased their dreams who have, in the past, made the biggest differences in the world, however big or small those dreams have been.
Take inspiration from the bee; ignore anyone or anything that says your dream is unattainable.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Procrastinating between right and wrong
Who is wrong and who is right?
Who is bad and who is good?
Is it not more important to follow our own beliefs and values – and defend these – instead of criticising another nation for what we believe they are doing wrong?
By this, I am definitely not suggesting I believe that rituals pertaining to various cultural traditions are always acceptable (especially those involving cruelty to animals); far from it, in fact. What I am saying is that rather than determinedly targeting other societies for their ‘wrongdoings’, people should consider what is going on in their own society and evaluate whether they are truly abiding by their own beliefs and values ... or being complete hypocrites.
Society is full of individuals with one thing in common – desire constantly prevails over belief.
I was thinking today about all the stories in which good prevails over evil ... the protagonists ultimately defeating any bad guys. In stories, of course, there is generally a well established good and bad side (although again, this is culture targeted and therefore good and bad is only a perception). This led me to consider what is going on around the world at present; various disputes, different allegations, and different levels of reward and punishment being allocated to those individuals deemed worthy or guilty enough for them.
Perhaps war / international debate is a global-scale form of procrastination for each nation to clean their own territory’s ... or perhaps it is more a defence / denial mechanism. Is it easier to place blame for different issues on another state or nation? In this case, I ask: who is wrong and who is right?
Who is bad and who is good?
Is it not more important to follow our own beliefs and values – and defend these – instead of criticising another nation for what we believe they are doing wrong?
By this, I am definitely not suggesting I believe that rituals pertaining to various cultural traditions are always acceptable (especially those involving cruelty to animals); far from it, in fact. What I am saying is that rather than determinedly targeting other societies for their ‘wrongdoings’, people should consider what is going on in their own society and evaluate whether they are truly abiding by their own beliefs and values ... or being complete hypocrites.
Society is full of individuals with one thing in common – desire constantly prevails over belief.
I was thinking today about all the stories in which good prevails over evil ... the protagonists ultimately defeating any bad guys. In stories, of course, there is generally a well established good and bad side (although again, this is culture targeted and therefore good and bad is only a perception). This led me to consider what is going on around the world at present; various disputes, different allegations, and different levels of reward and punishment being allocated to those individuals deemed worthy or guilty enough for them.
Perhaps war / international debate is a global-scale form of procrastination for each nation to clean their own territory’s ... or perhaps it is more a defence / denial mechanism. Is it easier to place blame for different issues on another state or nation? In this case, I ask: who is wrong and who is right?
Saturday, October 16, 2010
The Worst Human Epidemic?
Will egotism kill the human race?
Population control.
As defined by the ever awesome Wikipedia;
"the practice of artificially altering the size of any animal population besides humans. It typically refers to the act of limiting the size of an animal population so that it remains manageable, as opposed to the act of protecting a species from excessive rates of extinction, which is referred to as conservation biology."
This is typically done through 'animal euthanasia' (culling??) and neutering.
I think it's safe to say, however, that the population number, and growth, to be most feared is our own ... the human population continues to grow ... more and more people suffer from poverty, disease and abuse ... the pollution from overcrowded cities ... and perhaps the most hypocritical part of it all is that we are endangering other species through environmental / habitat destruction to support our own growth.
The question is (more rhetorical than anything): why, when many people (scientists and politicians perhaps..) express such a keen interest in maintaining the health and general welfare of the environment and wildlife populations, do so many see such measures on the human population as a crime or 'unthinkable'?
I present to you a couple of images, retrieved from google, depicting the consequences of human population growth:
Not really difficult to interpret these graphs, but for the sake of getting the message across, it's obvious that if human population growth continues the way it is, the consequences for the planet will be dire.
A quote which I think emphasises an important issue of population growth which is perhaps less considered than it should be in an age where technological advancements are strengthening our desire to live longer and stronger, defying age, and in turn cementing our opinion that we are superior;
"While the human population grows, the earth's size and resources remain the same. Technology can increase the amount of food that can be produced on a piece of land, but it cannot increase the amount of land and water on the planet."
Furthermore, I believe this particular paragraph;
"Environmental problems are aggravated by population explosions. More people means more resources and energy are consumed and more pollution is created and more waste is sent to landfills. More land is needed to grow crops and build houses. More trees are cut down for new homes. More cars are built, more fossil fuels are used, and more gases are released into the environment. More natural wilderness areas or beautiful landscapes are destroyed to provide resources and cropland. In short, population growth makes other environmental problems harder to solve."
sums up well my thoughts on why it is less important to settle the debate on climate change / global warming than it is to act on changing our behaviour for the problems we know and agree exist.
I highly recommend you read this article
Population control.
As defined by the ever awesome Wikipedia;
"the practice of artificially altering the size of any animal population besides humans. It typically refers to the act of limiting the size of an animal population so that it remains manageable, as opposed to the act of protecting a species from excessive rates of extinction, which is referred to as conservation biology."
This is typically done through 'animal euthanasia' (culling??) and neutering.
I think it's safe to say, however, that the population number, and growth, to be most feared is our own ... the human population continues to grow ... more and more people suffer from poverty, disease and abuse ... the pollution from overcrowded cities ... and perhaps the most hypocritical part of it all is that we are endangering other species through environmental / habitat destruction to support our own growth.
The question is (more rhetorical than anything): why, when many people (scientists and politicians perhaps..) express such a keen interest in maintaining the health and general welfare of the environment and wildlife populations, do so many see such measures on the human population as a crime or 'unthinkable'?
I present to you a couple of images, retrieved from google, depicting the consequences of human population growth:
Not really difficult to interpret these graphs, but for the sake of getting the message across, it's obvious that if human population growth continues the way it is, the consequences for the planet will be dire.
A quote which I think emphasises an important issue of population growth which is perhaps less considered than it should be in an age where technological advancements are strengthening our desire to live longer and stronger, defying age, and in turn cementing our opinion that we are superior;
"While the human population grows, the earth's size and resources remain the same. Technology can increase the amount of food that can be produced on a piece of land, but it cannot increase the amount of land and water on the planet."
Furthermore, I believe this particular paragraph;
"Environmental problems are aggravated by population explosions. More people means more resources and energy are consumed and more pollution is created and more waste is sent to landfills. More land is needed to grow crops and build houses. More trees are cut down for new homes. More cars are built, more fossil fuels are used, and more gases are released into the environment. More natural wilderness areas or beautiful landscapes are destroyed to provide resources and cropland. In short, population growth makes other environmental problems harder to solve."
sums up well my thoughts on why it is less important to settle the debate on climate change / global warming than it is to act on changing our behaviour for the problems we know and agree exist.
I highly recommend you read this article
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Nurturing the Roots
A very interesting thought was brought to my attention today, by a rather great, wise man:
"as a society/a world with so many problems should we fix one problem at a time starting from the root cause or should we try and fix them all at once(ie 3rd world countries, animal cruelty etc)
if we fix all of them at once we may have no impact, if we focus on one and work through them we may neglect animals or starving people for a period but ultimately wouldn't we fix the problem?"
My initial response to this:
"the idea of starting from the root cause has merit though; dealing with the base issues to prevent the actual problems worsening, or others developing in the future. You're right - trying to focus on all at once may have no impact - would probably be slightly chaotic, could even make things worse."
And to continue from this:
Yes, eventually, if we were consistent with trying to resolve issues bit by bit, ultimately we probably would fix the problems. Unfortunately, for a great deal of progress it would require a change in attitude by a large portion of the world's population.. or at least that of developed nations. In saying that, I definitely believe it's possible for one person to inspire a crowd that can have huge influence - as has been done repeatedly throughout history. The problem that comes to mind with this is - while there are people creating positive progress with these problems, a larger part of the population continues to act counter-effectively, by consuming products that perhaps aren't ethically produced (such as free trade) or consuming the products of animals kept in caged or otherwise intensive farming systems.
To work on one problem at a time - would we experience guilt at the thought of perhaps neglecting the other creatures suffering, whether they be human or other animal? Or would concentration on one problem result in increased difficulties for the other issues?
In general, I think there is a lot to be said for dealing with the root cause of any issue - whether that be the emotional difficulties experienced by an individual, or the poverty experienced by a nationwide population; if you nurture the foundations, then surely the stem and branches will be better nourished.
"as a society/a world with so many problems should we fix one problem at a time starting from the root cause or should we try and fix them all at once(ie 3rd world countries, animal cruelty etc)
if we fix all of them at once we may have no impact, if we focus on one and work through them we may neglect animals or starving people for a period but ultimately wouldn't we fix the problem?"
My initial response to this:
"the idea of starting from the root cause has merit though; dealing with the base issues to prevent the actual problems worsening, or others developing in the future. You're right - trying to focus on all at once may have no impact - would probably be slightly chaotic, could even make things worse."
And to continue from this:
Yes, eventually, if we were consistent with trying to resolve issues bit by bit, ultimately we probably would fix the problems. Unfortunately, for a great deal of progress it would require a change in attitude by a large portion of the world's population.. or at least that of developed nations. In saying that, I definitely believe it's possible for one person to inspire a crowd that can have huge influence - as has been done repeatedly throughout history. The problem that comes to mind with this is - while there are people creating positive progress with these problems, a larger part of the population continues to act counter-effectively, by consuming products that perhaps aren't ethically produced (such as free trade) or consuming the products of animals kept in caged or otherwise intensive farming systems.
To work on one problem at a time - would we experience guilt at the thought of perhaps neglecting the other creatures suffering, whether they be human or other animal? Or would concentration on one problem result in increased difficulties for the other issues?
In general, I think there is a lot to be said for dealing with the root cause of any issue - whether that be the emotional difficulties experienced by an individual, or the poverty experienced by a nationwide population; if you nurture the foundations, then surely the stem and branches will be better nourished.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Happy World Animal Day!
World Animal Day certainly seems a fitting topic for a blog observing and, in some ways, attempting to analyse the world; animals are a crucial part of the world and its atmosphere.. and no, I don't necessarily mean 'atmosphere' in terms of the gases circulating the globe.. I'm talking about the general emotional experience on Earth.
Animals are therapeutic. They're protective; they're nurturing. They're loyal. They (mostly) love unconditionally. They're intelligent.. much more so than many humans will give them credit for.
A youtube search for 'animal heroes' is simple proof of how incredible they are, and can be. Here's a video detailing the Animal Heroes of 2006 - Animals that have saved human lives and showed outstanding bravery, courage and intelligence:
It also seems fitting to include a few awesome quotes:
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Ghandi
"Aerodynamically, the bumble bee shouldn't be able to fly, but the bumble bee doesn't know it so it goes on flying anyway." - Mary Kay Ash
"Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people." - W. C. Fields
"A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than he loves himself." - Josh Billings
Finally, the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare - please read and sign the petition - it takes just a few moments of your time.
www.udaw.org
http://www.animalsmatter.org/en/campaign_resources/
And finally (for real this time!) a thought to ponder...
"One interesting finding is that 99% of Australians are against cruelty to animals, yet 98% eat animals and fish that come from cruel, intensive farming practices!" (A Pound of Flesh, http://www.scribd.com/doc/26880337/APF-VVSQ)
As Ghandi says.. 'you must be the change you want to see in the world'.
Here's to all animals
Animals are therapeutic. They're protective; they're nurturing. They're loyal. They (mostly) love unconditionally. They're intelligent.. much more so than many humans will give them credit for.
A youtube search for 'animal heroes' is simple proof of how incredible they are, and can be. Here's a video detailing the Animal Heroes of 2006 - Animals that have saved human lives and showed outstanding bravery, courage and intelligence:
It also seems fitting to include a few awesome quotes:
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Ghandi
"Aerodynamically, the bumble bee shouldn't be able to fly, but the bumble bee doesn't know it so it goes on flying anyway." - Mary Kay Ash
"Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people." - W. C. Fields
"A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than he loves himself." - Josh Billings
Finally, the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare - please read and sign the petition - it takes just a few moments of your time.
www.udaw.org
http://www.animalsmatter.org/en/campaign_resources/
And finally (for real this time!) a thought to ponder...
As Ghandi says.. 'you must be the change you want to see in the world'.
Here's to all animals
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
The Epitome of Beauty
Something I love about photography is the way it manages to capture solitary, magical moments in time. Moments that will never be repeated in exactly the same manner, but that help to define what life is about, and immortalize the incredible actions and elements of nature.
Follow this link to see some truly amazing shots by a talented man (mine :P).
http://illuzian.deviantart.com/
Follow this link to see some truly amazing shots by a talented man (mine :P).
http://illuzian.deviantart.com/
The Ropes of Our Pasts
"I have confidence, in confidence alone
Besides which you see I have confidence in me" - Julie Andrews, "The Sound of Music"
Confidence... probably the biggest obstacle between each of us and our dreams.
Whether we like or believe it or not, what we have experienced in the past does have an impact on how we feel in the present. However big or small our past trials and triumphs have been, they have an influence on how we perceive situations in the present, how we react to them, and how we feel we can deal with them.
That by no means goes to say that the level of confidence we feel in ourselves dictates what we can achieve; absolutely not. It is simply fears we have that cause us to doubt ourselves and our potential.
I think there is a lot of truth to the saying that we are each our own worst critic. Many of us find it difficult to accept compliments, but will readily admit our faults. This is, to me, why bullying is especially terrible, particularly in primary school where we are learning about ourselves and might not quite understand truth from lie, or teasing.
I'm currently watching Stranger than Fiction, and find the whole concept quite fascinating; Harold's life is being narrated... the voice either tells him everything he is doing, or tells him what is going to happen. Perhaps if we each had a voice like this tracking our thoughts, we would feel a lot more confident; and a lot less alone; in doing things. This voice transforms Harold's life as he realises he is capable of more. He finds love and passion. There is a lot to be said for moral support and understanding.
Confidence is clearly not simply about achieving things externally to ourselves; our internal thoughts can be very difficult to control, given the mind is such a powerful tool; our thoughts can be overbearing enough to totally distort what we see as truth and reality.
As a finishing thought, there is much to be said for smiling and greeting strangers on the pathway, and random, spontaneous, uplifting acts... break the routine, break from the crowd... cliche as it may sound, it is individuality that makes the world a more interesting and exciting place.
Besides which you see I have confidence in me" - Julie Andrews, "The Sound of Music"
Confidence... probably the biggest obstacle between each of us and our dreams.
Whether we like or believe it or not, what we have experienced in the past does have an impact on how we feel in the present. However big or small our past trials and triumphs have been, they have an influence on how we perceive situations in the present, how we react to them, and how we feel we can deal with them.
That by no means goes to say that the level of confidence we feel in ourselves dictates what we can achieve; absolutely not. It is simply fears we have that cause us to doubt ourselves and our potential.
I think there is a lot of truth to the saying that we are each our own worst critic. Many of us find it difficult to accept compliments, but will readily admit our faults. This is, to me, why bullying is especially terrible, particularly in primary school where we are learning about ourselves and might not quite understand truth from lie, or teasing.
I'm currently watching Stranger than Fiction, and find the whole concept quite fascinating; Harold's life is being narrated... the voice either tells him everything he is doing, or tells him what is going to happen. Perhaps if we each had a voice like this tracking our thoughts, we would feel a lot more confident; and a lot less alone; in doing things. This voice transforms Harold's life as he realises he is capable of more. He finds love and passion. There is a lot to be said for moral support and understanding.
Confidence is clearly not simply about achieving things externally to ourselves; our internal thoughts can be very difficult to control, given the mind is such a powerful tool; our thoughts can be overbearing enough to totally distort what we see as truth and reality.
As a finishing thought, there is much to be said for smiling and greeting strangers on the pathway, and random, spontaneous, uplifting acts... break the routine, break from the crowd... cliche as it may sound, it is individuality that makes the world a more interesting and exciting place.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
The Power of Words
I talked a while ago about the origins of language, and how it fascinates me. In this post, I'm going to focus more on the power of language.
Here are some quotes I got from an iPhone app (:P) that I love:
"The greatest mistake you can make in life is to be continually fearing you will make one." - Elbert Hubbard
"The degree of responsibility you take for your life determines how much change you can create in it." - Unknown
"What the mind can conceive, it can achieve." - Napoleon Hill (this is one of my personal favourites)
"When you move beyond your fear, you feel free." - Spencer Johnson
"If you're not willing to risk, you cannot grow. If you cannot grow, you cannot be your best. If you cannot be your best, you cannot be happy. If you cannot be happy, what else is there?" - Les Brown
"Minds are like parachutes. They only function when they are open." - Sir James Dewar
What is it that draws people to quotes? Or, as I'm speaking for myself here, what is it that draws me to quotes? Technically, quotes are simply random words drawn together to convey a certain meaning or message, or many. The beauty of quotes, of strings of words, is in their effect.. words stimulate the mind, force us to think about ideas possibly beyond our current knowledge. These quotes inspire me; when I read them, I don't see words but what they represent. The bigger image. That's the beauty of words; they are not meant to be entirely considered and appreciated in their literal / written / physical form; they create an avenue for people to see extraordinary new images.
Words enable us to communicate. Words create change. All in all, words are a powerful weapon or tool; possibly the most powerful tool any person can have.
"I do not want to foresee the future. I am concerned with taking care of the present. God has given me no control over the moment following." Yes, I do love Ghandi.. so, so many wonderful words :)
However, this one I believe carries an important point - 'I am concerned with taking care of the present'. My mind soars straight to climate change and conservation, predictions and debates. My simple question is - we know there are problems with pollution now, we know we are losing wildlife from human destruction of the environment now, so, instead of arguing over what's true and not, why not just deal with the issues that might be causing it? It would be healthier for everyone and everything, including the economy.
Anyway... back on topic
The most meaningful and powerful quote I have read is Ghandi's "You must be the change you want to see in the world." These twelve words combine to convey an idea that attempts to encourage and inspire people to study the bigger picture; they are words that one will read and immediately be drawn to consider. This is the power of the mind - when we read something, we automatically, involuntarily think about its meaning because that's what each word is to us.
"A Small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history." - Ghandi
With that I leave you with another quote of Ghandi's to ponder;
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."
Here are some quotes I got from an iPhone app (:P) that I love:
"The greatest mistake you can make in life is to be continually fearing you will make one." - Elbert Hubbard
"The degree of responsibility you take for your life determines how much change you can create in it." - Unknown
"What the mind can conceive, it can achieve." - Napoleon Hill (this is one of my personal favourites)
"When you move beyond your fear, you feel free." - Spencer Johnson
"If you're not willing to risk, you cannot grow. If you cannot grow, you cannot be your best. If you cannot be your best, you cannot be happy. If you cannot be happy, what else is there?" - Les Brown
"Minds are like parachutes. They only function when they are open." - Sir James Dewar
What is it that draws people to quotes? Or, as I'm speaking for myself here, what is it that draws me to quotes? Technically, quotes are simply random words drawn together to convey a certain meaning or message, or many. The beauty of quotes, of strings of words, is in their effect.. words stimulate the mind, force us to think about ideas possibly beyond our current knowledge. These quotes inspire me; when I read them, I don't see words but what they represent. The bigger image. That's the beauty of words; they are not meant to be entirely considered and appreciated in their literal / written / physical form; they create an avenue for people to see extraordinary new images.
Words enable us to communicate. Words create change. All in all, words are a powerful weapon or tool; possibly the most powerful tool any person can have.
"I do not want to foresee the future. I am concerned with taking care of the present. God has given me no control over the moment following." Yes, I do love Ghandi.. so, so many wonderful words :)
However, this one I believe carries an important point - 'I am concerned with taking care of the present'. My mind soars straight to climate change and conservation, predictions and debates. My simple question is - we know there are problems with pollution now, we know we are losing wildlife from human destruction of the environment now, so, instead of arguing over what's true and not, why not just deal with the issues that might be causing it? It would be healthier for everyone and everything, including the economy.
Anyway... back on topic
The most meaningful and powerful quote I have read is Ghandi's "You must be the change you want to see in the world." These twelve words combine to convey an idea that attempts to encourage and inspire people to study the bigger picture; they are words that one will read and immediately be drawn to consider. This is the power of the mind - when we read something, we automatically, involuntarily think about its meaning because that's what each word is to us.
"A Small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history." - Ghandi
With that I leave you with another quote of Ghandi's to ponder;
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Video everyone should see and learn from
Are her words not true? Why is it that governments and people with the power and ability discuss and debate to no end without acting, or at the most with minimal action? Is it based on convenience and keeping the people happy, thereby keeping their power? What is the point of having the power if it isn't going to be applied to anything?
Some questions to consider..
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
A quote that requires no discussion...
“All our lauded technological progress—our very civilization—is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal.”
~Albert Einstein
~Albert Einstein
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Dedicated to Caged Victims
The following video (and I warn you, I've cried both times watching this..) is the reason I started my search for a neglected, abused budgie to adopt. Our little girl, Chloe, is currently snuggled asleep in her flight-allowing, entertainment and yumminess equipped cage. When she is more settled and less anxious, we'll begin letting her out to fly around the room.
Please take a few minutes to watch this video and learn from it; the immense reward and joy you can get from an abused or impounded animal you choose to adopt instead of purchasing from a pet shop. For information on how you can help ease the plight of the caged, email binkys_cause@hotmail.co.uk
The video below is an example of the immense joy that can be gained from rescuing an animal; PLEASE consider adoption.
Please take a few minutes to watch this video and learn from it; the immense reward and joy you can get from an abused or impounded animal you choose to adopt instead of purchasing from a pet shop. For information on how you can help ease the plight of the caged, email binkys_cause@hotmail.co.uk
The video below is an example of the immense joy that can be gained from rescuing an animal; PLEASE consider adoption.
Mental Stuffs
It's been a while since I've updated this. I have no excuse aside from uni and sheer laziness. Perhaps also somewhat lack of inspiration.. which is rather silly since every day I see and experience things that cause me to question the world, and people in it. A lot.
I've been happy recently getting back into some animal 'stuff'. I've taken an interest lately (or should I say, refuelled my somewhat neglected interest) in mistreated / abused / neglected animals, and the mental states of the people who commit such atrocities. Watching a few cases on RSPCA Animal Rescue, I am truly horrified to know that some people could actually have the capability to do such things; to realise they are inflicting harm on a living creature. My question is: what leads people to such states? I realise not all these people realise what they are doing; but then there are some people so apparently sadistic that they really do see their actions, and the consequences, amusing.
Only days ago a woman was caught on camera putting a cat into a bin. Thankfully the general public's reaction to this showed that we are, in general, a society that loves animals; whether many of our actions prove that or not, at least the presence of that compassion is positive.. especially as this woman was later reported to say 'it's just a cat'. Indeed, that struck a sore cord in me.
Something a little happier, or at least less saddening, I've been contemplating as a result of this and something someone said to me (or something along these lines); Are we who we say we are, or are we how other people see us? I believe this relates to mental states and some potentially resulting problems, might they be inflicting cruelty on humans or non-human animals. Is it our actions that dictate our true state of mind, or might our actions be a more complex facade or outlet for expressing a complicated web of thoughts and emotions we have trouble understanding? It's all very well telling someone to think differently, or do something they may have mental barriers about (i.e. fears), but without knowing the exact build up of emotions and thoughts an individual experiences, it is nearly impossible to decipher their reasons for doing something. Even the most in-depth experiment cannot obtain absolutely conclusive answers as any one individual may have a slightly different reaction that would render a result at least partially invalid.
It feels strange that I'm trying to see the other side of the mind; from the abuser's perspective. Just to clarify; I am in NO way defending anyone's actions; I believe any harm inflicted on human or animal is inexcusable, unjustifiable.. I am simply contemplating, in a very general way, what drives people to act in any way, and what it is that makes up one's 'person', 'identity'.. who they are.
I maintain that the mind is an extremely powerful tool.
I've been happy recently getting back into some animal 'stuff'. I've taken an interest lately (or should I say, refuelled my somewhat neglected interest) in mistreated / abused / neglected animals, and the mental states of the people who commit such atrocities. Watching a few cases on RSPCA Animal Rescue, I am truly horrified to know that some people could actually have the capability to do such things; to realise they are inflicting harm on a living creature. My question is: what leads people to such states? I realise not all these people realise what they are doing; but then there are some people so apparently sadistic that they really do see their actions, and the consequences, amusing.
Only days ago a woman was caught on camera putting a cat into a bin. Thankfully the general public's reaction to this showed that we are, in general, a society that loves animals; whether many of our actions prove that or not, at least the presence of that compassion is positive.. especially as this woman was later reported to say 'it's just a cat'. Indeed, that struck a sore cord in me.
Something a little happier, or at least less saddening, I've been contemplating as a result of this and something someone said to me (or something along these lines); Are we who we say we are, or are we how other people see us? I believe this relates to mental states and some potentially resulting problems, might they be inflicting cruelty on humans or non-human animals. Is it our actions that dictate our true state of mind, or might our actions be a more complex facade or outlet for expressing a complicated web of thoughts and emotions we have trouble understanding? It's all very well telling someone to think differently, or do something they may have mental barriers about (i.e. fears), but without knowing the exact build up of emotions and thoughts an individual experiences, it is nearly impossible to decipher their reasons for doing something. Even the most in-depth experiment cannot obtain absolutely conclusive answers as any one individual may have a slightly different reaction that would render a result at least partially invalid.
It feels strange that I'm trying to see the other side of the mind; from the abuser's perspective. Just to clarify; I am in NO way defending anyone's actions; I believe any harm inflicted on human or animal is inexcusable, unjustifiable.. I am simply contemplating, in a very general way, what drives people to act in any way, and what it is that makes up one's 'person', 'identity'.. who they are.
I maintain that the mind is an extremely powerful tool.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
A Philosophical Ramble
A quote by Aristotle: “We are what we repeatedly do.”
This rings true in so many ways. One problem I can see is that we generally perceive only actions that differ to our normal activities as ones which may have more negative consequences; that is, these are our experimental actions. Those rituals that are deeply embedded in what each of us does everyday seem to be overlooked; a blind spot in humanity’s eyes since they have no obvious further consequence than our neutral existence.
Plato once said, “We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.”
‘Light’, in this case, is obviously symbolic. Might it represent truth? Perhaps an alternate version of something that challenges the individual’s prior belief/s?
Herein lies the difficulty: in my opinion, the biggest irony that we know today is that ‘fact’ in itself is false. If nought is fact, then lessons are largely based on opinion and perspective; in education systems, majority rules, or government dictates.
This brings me to an important question put forward by Socrates: “What is good and what is evil?” If societies do, in fact, participate in war for the sake of protecting what is ‘good’, and defeating what is ‘evil’, is this not merely a difference in perspective, each person fighting the image of themself in a distorted mirror?
I was fascinated to learn about part of Socrates method for building the perfect utopia; a complete and harmonious world – that children are only allowed to hear heroic and uplifting tales. To me, this leads to greater challenges. As suggested by the idea that happiness cannot be fully known without sadness, perhaps real ‘good’ can only be known by the experience of ‘evil’. Given the two are fundamentally linked – one can’t know ‘happiness’ without knowing ‘good’, it seems logical to conclude that, in a perfect utopia, neutrality would persist.
This rings true in so many ways. One problem I can see is that we generally perceive only actions that differ to our normal activities as ones which may have more negative consequences; that is, these are our experimental actions. Those rituals that are deeply embedded in what each of us does everyday seem to be overlooked; a blind spot in humanity’s eyes since they have no obvious further consequence than our neutral existence.
Plato once said, “We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.”
‘Light’, in this case, is obviously symbolic. Might it represent truth? Perhaps an alternate version of something that challenges the individual’s prior belief/s?
Herein lies the difficulty: in my opinion, the biggest irony that we know today is that ‘fact’ in itself is false. If nought is fact, then lessons are largely based on opinion and perspective; in education systems, majority rules, or government dictates.
This brings me to an important question put forward by Socrates: “What is good and what is evil?” If societies do, in fact, participate in war for the sake of protecting what is ‘good’, and defeating what is ‘evil’, is this not merely a difference in perspective, each person fighting the image of themself in a distorted mirror?
I was fascinated to learn about part of Socrates method for building the perfect utopia; a complete and harmonious world – that children are only allowed to hear heroic and uplifting tales. To me, this leads to greater challenges. As suggested by the idea that happiness cannot be fully known without sadness, perhaps real ‘good’ can only be known by the experience of ‘evil’. Given the two are fundamentally linked – one can’t know ‘happiness’ without knowing ‘good’, it seems logical to conclude that, in a perfect utopia, neutrality would persist.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Lang-u-widge
Where does language come from?
Yes, it is a rhetorical question; but that’s only because I’ve asked it many times before, and have always been given similar answers that address languages coming from different cultures and whatnot, but not its core origin.
So, what did I do? I went on a search for myself, and found this, by Dr. C. George Boeree:
“There are many theories about the origins of language. Many of these have traditional amusing names (invented by Max Müller and George Romanes a century ago), and I will create a couple more where needed.
1. The mama theory. Language began with the easiest syllables attached to the most significant objects.
2. The ta-ta theory. Sir Richard Paget, influenced by Darwin, believed that body movement preceded language. Language began as an unconscious vocal imitation of these movements -- like the way a child’s mouth will move when they use scissors, or my tongue sticks out when I try to play the guitar. This evolved into the popular idea that language may have derived from gestures.
3. The bow-wow theory. Language began as imitations of natural sounds -- moo, choo-choo, crash, clang, buzz, bang, meow... This is more technically refered to as onomatopoeia or echoism.
4. The pooh-pooh theory. Language began with interjections, instinctive emotive cries such as oh! for surprise and ouch! for pain.
5. The ding-dong theory. Some people, including the famous linguist Max Muller, have pointed out that there is a rather mysterious correspondence between sounds and meanings. Small, sharp, high things tend to have words with high front vowels in many languages, while big, round, low things tend to have round back vowels! Compare itsy bitsy teeny weeny with moon, for example. This is often referred to as sound symbolism.
6. The yo-he-ho theory. Language began as rhythmic chants, perhaps ultimately from the grunts of heavy work (heave-ho!). The linguist A. S. Diamond suggests that these were perhaps calls for assistance or cooperation accompanied by appropriate gestures. This may relate yo-he-ho to the ding-dong theory, as in such words as cut, break, crush, strike...
7. The sing-song theory. Danish linguist Jesperson suggested that language comes out of play, laughter, cooing, courtship, emotional mutterings and the like. He even suggests that, contrary to other theories, perhaps some of our first words were actually long and musical, rather than the short grunts many assume we started with.
8. The hey you! theory. A linguist by the name of Revesz suggested that we have always needed interpersonal contact, and that language began as sounds to signal both identity (here I am!) and belonging (I’m with you!). We may also cry out in fear, anger, or hurt (help me!). This is more commonly called the contact theory.
9. The hocus pocus theory. My own contribution to these is the idea that language may have had some roots in a sort of magical or religious aspect of our ancestors' lives. Perhaps we began by calling out to game animals with magical sounds, which became their names.
10. The eureka! theory. And finally, perhaps language was consciously invented. Perhaps some ancestor had the idea of assigning arbitrary sounds to mean certain things. Clearly, once the idea was had, it would catch on like wild-fire!” (C. George Boeree, 2003)
However, even this new insight into language invention, I still wonder, and find it fascinating, how people originally connected some words with their objects, and even more so, how words were prescribed a meaning, or vice-versa; how terms were appointed to various descriptions.
Did someone one day pick up a carrot and decide it should be called a carrot? What does ‘carrot’ even mean? The miraculous thing that comes out of this ‘naming’ is that now, whenever anyone mentions a ‘carrot’ for whatever reason, most people will know what they’re talking about. But, how, in any other way, does the word ‘carrot’ seem related to the long, pointy, orange vegetable?
To philosophers and to people in general, it is generally accepted knowledge, ironically, that ‘fact’ doesn’t exist. Nothing is certain; humans simply observe, analyse and label things to attempt to understand them. The names and descriptions we prescribe to these things is simply our method of understanding them.
So, in saying that language is a product of how we perceive and understand the world around us, and given that different cultures have different words for the same name (which, again, could be considered an entirely different word?? It’s just another way of identifying the same object in a more relevant way for a different society), doesn’t this mean that, as words and definitions are only a product of human ‘labeling’, and therefore changeable, other human-created ideas and concepts are just as changeable? Perhaps, due to the limits of our understanding, beyond this things are even more vulnerable to change or destruction.
Then again, if what I suggest has any truth, and language bares little truth bar what we make of it, perhaps this is fake! ... Fortunately, it seems that what we make of things is the most important thing.
Yes, it is a rhetorical question; but that’s only because I’ve asked it many times before, and have always been given similar answers that address languages coming from different cultures and whatnot, but not its core origin.
So, what did I do? I went on a search for myself, and found this, by Dr. C. George Boeree:
“There are many theories about the origins of language. Many of these have traditional amusing names (invented by Max Müller and George Romanes a century ago), and I will create a couple more where needed.
1. The mama theory. Language began with the easiest syllables attached to the most significant objects.
2. The ta-ta theory. Sir Richard Paget, influenced by Darwin, believed that body movement preceded language. Language began as an unconscious vocal imitation of these movements -- like the way a child’s mouth will move when they use scissors, or my tongue sticks out when I try to play the guitar. This evolved into the popular idea that language may have derived from gestures.
3. The bow-wow theory. Language began as imitations of natural sounds -- moo, choo-choo, crash, clang, buzz, bang, meow... This is more technically refered to as onomatopoeia or echoism.
4. The pooh-pooh theory. Language began with interjections, instinctive emotive cries such as oh! for surprise and ouch! for pain.
5. The ding-dong theory. Some people, including the famous linguist Max Muller, have pointed out that there is a rather mysterious correspondence between sounds and meanings. Small, sharp, high things tend to have words with high front vowels in many languages, while big, round, low things tend to have round back vowels! Compare itsy bitsy teeny weeny with moon, for example. This is often referred to as sound symbolism.
6. The yo-he-ho theory. Language began as rhythmic chants, perhaps ultimately from the grunts of heavy work (heave-ho!). The linguist A. S. Diamond suggests that these were perhaps calls for assistance or cooperation accompanied by appropriate gestures. This may relate yo-he-ho to the ding-dong theory, as in such words as cut, break, crush, strike...
7. The sing-song theory. Danish linguist Jesperson suggested that language comes out of play, laughter, cooing, courtship, emotional mutterings and the like. He even suggests that, contrary to other theories, perhaps some of our first words were actually long and musical, rather than the short grunts many assume we started with.
8. The hey you! theory. A linguist by the name of Revesz suggested that we have always needed interpersonal contact, and that language began as sounds to signal both identity (here I am!) and belonging (I’m with you!). We may also cry out in fear, anger, or hurt (help me!). This is more commonly called the contact theory.
9. The hocus pocus theory. My own contribution to these is the idea that language may have had some roots in a sort of magical or religious aspect of our ancestors' lives. Perhaps we began by calling out to game animals with magical sounds, which became their names.
10. The eureka! theory. And finally, perhaps language was consciously invented. Perhaps some ancestor had the idea of assigning arbitrary sounds to mean certain things. Clearly, once the idea was had, it would catch on like wild-fire!” (C. George Boeree, 2003)
However, even this new insight into language invention, I still wonder, and find it fascinating, how people originally connected some words with their objects, and even more so, how words were prescribed a meaning, or vice-versa; how terms were appointed to various descriptions.
Did someone one day pick up a carrot and decide it should be called a carrot? What does ‘carrot’ even mean? The miraculous thing that comes out of this ‘naming’ is that now, whenever anyone mentions a ‘carrot’ for whatever reason, most people will know what they’re talking about. But, how, in any other way, does the word ‘carrot’ seem related to the long, pointy, orange vegetable?
To philosophers and to people in general, it is generally accepted knowledge, ironically, that ‘fact’ doesn’t exist. Nothing is certain; humans simply observe, analyse and label things to attempt to understand them. The names and descriptions we prescribe to these things is simply our method of understanding them.
So, in saying that language is a product of how we perceive and understand the world around us, and given that different cultures have different words for the same name (which, again, could be considered an entirely different word?? It’s just another way of identifying the same object in a more relevant way for a different society), doesn’t this mean that, as words and definitions are only a product of human ‘labeling’, and therefore changeable, other human-created ideas and concepts are just as changeable? Perhaps, due to the limits of our understanding, beyond this things are even more vulnerable to change or destruction.
Then again, if what I suggest has any truth, and language bares little truth bar what we make of it, perhaps this is fake! ... Fortunately, it seems that what we make of things is the most important thing.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Passion and Action Beyond Belief
This blog came to me in the half hour after I awoke from a brilliant dream, as I reflected on the depression I felt that a certain part (the only part I initially remembered) of the dream was, in fact, a figment of my subconsciousness, before I gradually remembered the rest of the dream, and was somewhat shocked by its contents. The thing is, no matter what a dream is, in whatever terms, what really matters is its contents; what story it tells you; what it reveals about you that, perhaps, you didn’t know, or had forgotten, about yourself.
My dream – the summary of important parts – I saved a tiny baby goat from the slaughter (the little thing was too cute!) and then seemed to be a spectator to the rest of the sheep slaughter process (well, something about dipping the sheep in water which I didn’t quite understand, but nonetheless...). Finally, I was nearly strangled by a rope tied around a tiger as it was led by its trainer, as it seemed I was in the grounds of a circus training facility of some sort.
The point – I am a big supporter of animal welfare and ethics. Supporter; yes, but the amount I have done about it in the previous couple of years; bordering on zilch. That was not the first dream I’ve had (in recent months) about animals suffering, and I think it’s telling me something ... perhaps not, but that’s what I feel I should take from it. And a lot of the time when it comes down to it, the importance of meaning is not in the actual meaning, but the meaning the spectator makes of it. The meaning (well, one of many that I won’t go into) I am taking from this dream is – I may say I support something and am even passionate about it, but passion does not in any way translate to action if there is no, well, action, involved!
Unfortunately, when it comes to causes people support, our own wavering focus and increasing distraction due to the general chaos of life does not by any account mean other people are paying the cause any more attention, or the people or animals suffering are enduring any less pain. All it means is we, the general population, go on living our own lives increasingly able to forget or ignore.
Of course, a huge credit should go to those people who do work so tirelessly, and many voluntary, to help humans, animals and environments in need.
The question I really seek an answer to, is: How are we supposed to get a message across effectively enough to stimulate action in the wider community, when people are constantly divided over its truth? An added difficulty here lies not in the simple, supportable ‘I believe or disbelieve this theory’, but in the fact that many people will choose their side based on bias, convenience or desire, or in the case that they believe that there is a wrongdoing, something that needs to be changed, will deny that anything can be done on the same bases.
As I was discussing with someone today, the only thing that seems to be progressing in the world is technology; not humanity.
My dream – the summary of important parts – I saved a tiny baby goat from the slaughter (the little thing was too cute!) and then seemed to be a spectator to the rest of the sheep slaughter process (well, something about dipping the sheep in water which I didn’t quite understand, but nonetheless...). Finally, I was nearly strangled by a rope tied around a tiger as it was led by its trainer, as it seemed I was in the grounds of a circus training facility of some sort.
The point – I am a big supporter of animal welfare and ethics. Supporter; yes, but the amount I have done about it in the previous couple of years; bordering on zilch. That was not the first dream I’ve had (in recent months) about animals suffering, and I think it’s telling me something ... perhaps not, but that’s what I feel I should take from it. And a lot of the time when it comes down to it, the importance of meaning is not in the actual meaning, but the meaning the spectator makes of it. The meaning (well, one of many that I won’t go into) I am taking from this dream is – I may say I support something and am even passionate about it, but passion does not in any way translate to action if there is no, well, action, involved!
Unfortunately, when it comes to causes people support, our own wavering focus and increasing distraction due to the general chaos of life does not by any account mean other people are paying the cause any more attention, or the people or animals suffering are enduring any less pain. All it means is we, the general population, go on living our own lives increasingly able to forget or ignore.
Of course, a huge credit should go to those people who do work so tirelessly, and many voluntary, to help humans, animals and environments in need.
The question I really seek an answer to, is: How are we supposed to get a message across effectively enough to stimulate action in the wider community, when people are constantly divided over its truth? An added difficulty here lies not in the simple, supportable ‘I believe or disbelieve this theory’, but in the fact that many people will choose their side based on bias, convenience or desire, or in the case that they believe that there is a wrongdoing, something that needs to be changed, will deny that anything can be done on the same bases.
As I was discussing with someone today, the only thing that seems to be progressing in the world is technology; not humanity.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Boundaries, Barriers and Beliefs
Is it not ironic that in a free and subjective world, each of us is victim to judgment?
How is it that any one person can make a choice or choose a perspective completely of their own when they are constantly enduring the fear of judgment from behind the spectacles of society?
Yes, these are deep statements, but I feel they are important questions to consider. How is true, healthy progress to be made on a global scale when each person’s, or group’s, definition of perfection or a desirable state differs to the point where we all exist on an equal plane with unfulfilled goals, and the people in charge represent not the progress of a state or nation, but the facade which wishes to be seen or believed?
I have recently studied Hard Times by Charles Dickens, and Dickens raises an extremely valid point through this story; we are each, as individuals, not prepared by education to tackle the real world; we are instead molded into beings capable of operating the mechanics of the constructed world. This is not to say that education is a bad thing; to the contrary, I think it is a great thing which shouldn’t be taken for granted. It cannot be denied however, that education authorities often selectively exclude certain theories from their programs, such as religion.
We all deserve the chance to discover for ourselves what is right and wrong or, in the case of many grey areas, at least form our own opinion. Who has the right to say what is and what isn’t, what is real and what is not, when the only sure thing is that nothing can be proven or disproven?
How is it that any one person can make a choice or choose a perspective completely of their own when they are constantly enduring the fear of judgment from behind the spectacles of society?
Yes, these are deep statements, but I feel they are important questions to consider. How is true, healthy progress to be made on a global scale when each person’s, or group’s, definition of perfection or a desirable state differs to the point where we all exist on an equal plane with unfulfilled goals, and the people in charge represent not the progress of a state or nation, but the facade which wishes to be seen or believed?
I have recently studied Hard Times by Charles Dickens, and Dickens raises an extremely valid point through this story; we are each, as individuals, not prepared by education to tackle the real world; we are instead molded into beings capable of operating the mechanics of the constructed world. This is not to say that education is a bad thing; to the contrary, I think it is a great thing which shouldn’t be taken for granted. It cannot be denied however, that education authorities often selectively exclude certain theories from their programs, such as religion.
We all deserve the chance to discover for ourselves what is right and wrong or, in the case of many grey areas, at least form our own opinion. Who has the right to say what is and what isn’t, what is real and what is not, when the only sure thing is that nothing can be proven or disproven?
Monday, March 8, 2010
The Actor Behind the Mask
Masks. A lot of them. What we all wear.
A few days ago, I jotted down a rough paragraph to write this from. It was inspired by something I noticed a while ago that I will explain after the paragraph;
"What is appearance? It is a representation of who we are; but then anyone who sees us judges us on that, and may interpret what they see as something entirely different from what the person intended; and who that person really is. It is because we all see things differently. We see a person with a flaw, and our attention is caught by that flaw. We may even be more apprehensive about approaching that person. There is much truth to the idea that appearance may be a barrier between people."
I jotted down the above paragraph after contemplating some people in my past, and others' pasts that I have heard about. I was surprised to realise, a while ago, that a few people I have become friends with in the past are people who, prior to meeting them, I have observed with negative judgement (I admit to this even though it's very shallow of me.. sometimes I have trouble talking to, or even trusting, people because of how they appear - too many horror movies? :P). The friendships I've formed with these people, and what I have learned about them and their histories, has taught me that appearance, even that which we create ourselves, can be considerably deceptive.
Of course, the problem may simply be that other people are perceiving our appearance differently to how it is intended, as I suggested above.
I suppose a good example of this would be any character in a movie or TV show, and the actor playing them. It's sometimes very surprising for some people to learn that an actor is different from their character (I could even go so far as to say it's sometimes surprising that an actor ISN'T their character, no matter how much we'd wish them to be so; how many movie couples have audiences wished would get married in real life?). Do people act in every day life, perhaps hiding various parts of their personality for fear of judgement? Are we all trapped within the bars of social expectations? (Just to get deep ;)).
Of course, the (sometimes) difference with actors is that they intentionally deceive the public into believing the character they play is an existing person (although it can be slightly disappointing when we realise the actor isn't, in fact, the character they portray.
I hope this wouldn't be the case in real life though; it is sad, and a bad reflection on society, when people fear revealing their true selves. Not to sound totally cliche and corny (although I know I'm going to anyway), but individuality / uniqueness should be cherished. That's how half of our entertainers came to the point where viewers smile and feel excitement simply upon hearing their name or seeing their face. It seems to be a common story in the entertainment industry that many successful actors / actresses / musicians etc had difficult childhoods and youths.
So, really, be nice to everyone, it may be the least likely person that you see that could be the person you are luckiest to meet ;)
A few days ago, I jotted down a rough paragraph to write this from. It was inspired by something I noticed a while ago that I will explain after the paragraph;
"What is appearance? It is a representation of who we are; but then anyone who sees us judges us on that, and may interpret what they see as something entirely different from what the person intended; and who that person really is. It is because we all see things differently. We see a person with a flaw, and our attention is caught by that flaw. We may even be more apprehensive about approaching that person. There is much truth to the idea that appearance may be a barrier between people."
I jotted down the above paragraph after contemplating some people in my past, and others' pasts that I have heard about. I was surprised to realise, a while ago, that a few people I have become friends with in the past are people who, prior to meeting them, I have observed with negative judgement (I admit to this even though it's very shallow of me.. sometimes I have trouble talking to, or even trusting, people because of how they appear - too many horror movies? :P). The friendships I've formed with these people, and what I have learned about them and their histories, has taught me that appearance, even that which we create ourselves, can be considerably deceptive.
Of course, the problem may simply be that other people are perceiving our appearance differently to how it is intended, as I suggested above.
I suppose a good example of this would be any character in a movie or TV show, and the actor playing them. It's sometimes very surprising for some people to learn that an actor is different from their character (I could even go so far as to say it's sometimes surprising that an actor ISN'T their character, no matter how much we'd wish them to be so; how many movie couples have audiences wished would get married in real life?). Do people act in every day life, perhaps hiding various parts of their personality for fear of judgement? Are we all trapped within the bars of social expectations? (Just to get deep ;)).
Of course, the (sometimes) difference with actors is that they intentionally deceive the public into believing the character they play is an existing person (although it can be slightly disappointing when we realise the actor isn't, in fact, the character they portray.
I hope this wouldn't be the case in real life though; it is sad, and a bad reflection on society, when people fear revealing their true selves. Not to sound totally cliche and corny (although I know I'm going to anyway), but individuality / uniqueness should be cherished. That's how half of our entertainers came to the point where viewers smile and feel excitement simply upon hearing their name or seeing their face. It seems to be a common story in the entertainment industry that many successful actors / actresses / musicians etc had difficult childhoods and youths.
So, really, be nice to everyone, it may be the least likely person that you see that could be the person you are luckiest to meet ;)
Friday, January 29, 2010
The World In 3d: A Whole New Perspec- Wait.. really?
I just saw the headline ‘Avatar: Biggest. Film. EVER.’ And it made me wonder what it is about this film that is drawing so many viewers. If I didn’t know better, I may go so far as to suggest there is something hypnotic about the blue stare of Sam Worthington’s humanoid. However, I’m not going to make such a ridiculous suggestion, because their eyes are actually greener in colour; it is just their flesh that glows blue.
Clearly, from the view point of setting / scenery and special effects in general, it is an amazing movie. Visually, it is captivating, even by normal viewing (i.e. for those of us who have only seen the film in 2d, as defeating-the-purpose as that is). However, there have been many other films in the past with scenery and effects just as incredible, and the storyline isn’t exactly original (many comparisons made to Pocahontas and other older films), so what exactly is it about this film?
Is it a case of psychology; we see our everyday lives in 3d, yet the idea of experiencing the same perspective of a fantasy world is compelling? Perhaps, instead of simply being a spectator, it creates the illusion for the audience that they are indeed part of the drama (minus the risk of being killed or the opportunity for that perfect romance). I was taught a while ago that watching a movie isn’t the same as escaping reality; it is simply experiencing another version of it; or a version of another reality. I see a lot of truth in that, since we apply our own memories and experiences to whatever image or animation we see; whatever story we investigate via words, performances or recordings.
So, Avatar is a film that was 15 years in the making, mainly because it was originally designed to be a 3d film, and the technology wasn’t available a few years ago. That’s something that straight away distinguishes this film from the others; it is in its own category, a form of technology that has no competition in its level of advancement. As humans, we are naturally curious about new inventions, technological feats and so on. That’s obviously one of the main reasons for the overwhelming popularity of this film; because it successfully evokes curiosity in those areas.
In saying this, would it be fair to hypothesise that a film could have the most generic, predictable storyline, but with the most advanced special effects possible, could overshadow any other successful film, owing simply to the power of human nature?
Clearly, from the view point of setting / scenery and special effects in general, it is an amazing movie. Visually, it is captivating, even by normal viewing (i.e. for those of us who have only seen the film in 2d, as defeating-the-purpose as that is). However, there have been many other films in the past with scenery and effects just as incredible, and the storyline isn’t exactly original (many comparisons made to Pocahontas and other older films), so what exactly is it about this film?
Is it a case of psychology; we see our everyday lives in 3d, yet the idea of experiencing the same perspective of a fantasy world is compelling? Perhaps, instead of simply being a spectator, it creates the illusion for the audience that they are indeed part of the drama (minus the risk of being killed or the opportunity for that perfect romance). I was taught a while ago that watching a movie isn’t the same as escaping reality; it is simply experiencing another version of it; or a version of another reality. I see a lot of truth in that, since we apply our own memories and experiences to whatever image or animation we see; whatever story we investigate via words, performances or recordings.
So, Avatar is a film that was 15 years in the making, mainly because it was originally designed to be a 3d film, and the technology wasn’t available a few years ago. That’s something that straight away distinguishes this film from the others; it is in its own category, a form of technology that has no competition in its level of advancement. As humans, we are naturally curious about new inventions, technological feats and so on. That’s obviously one of the main reasons for the overwhelming popularity of this film; because it successfully evokes curiosity in those areas.
In saying this, would it be fair to hypothesise that a film could have the most generic, predictable storyline, but with the most advanced special effects possible, could overshadow any other successful film, owing simply to the power of human nature?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Animania
I make no secret of it; Walt Disney was (and still is) my biggest idol and inspiration. While my writing style isn't quite the same, it is something like his position that I dream of being in (and I'm not entirely talking about the wealth ;)).
As I begin this paragraph, it is about 5 hours later. Mainly because the power went out for 3 or so hours. When sitting in darkness, one has plenty of time to think; and sing the numerous Disney songs remembered from childhood (and more recently), but that's another story :)
As I begin this paragraph, it is about 5 hours later. Mainly because the power went out for 3 or so hours. When sitting in darkness, one has plenty of time to think; and sing the numerous Disney songs remembered from childhood (and more recently), but that's another story :)
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Media Frenzy
This was originally included in the post dedicated to Haiti, but on consideration I thought it might be nicer to keep my thoughts separate. So, here is the new post.
At times like this, I find I start to think about the global community. I mentioned in a previous post how, at certain times and in certain places it feels like people are divided more so, and more definitely, than they would be usually. It seems to be the complete opposite when disaster strikes; people bond at times like this.
At times like this, I find I start to think about the global community. I mentioned in a previous post how, at certain times and in certain places it feels like people are divided more so, and more definitely, than they would be usually. It seems to be the complete opposite when disaster strikes; people bond at times like this.
This post is a dedication to the victims of the Haiti Earthquake disaster, a 7.0 Mw earthquake causing devastation to the Haitian community on the 12th January 2010, although its effects are going to last much longer. Six days after, the death count had reached 75 000 people, and is still increasing.
This video, as stated on youtube, is based on a song called 'Touch Someone', written in December 2009, to help those in despair. It was written by a Haitian-American.
I would like to offer my deepest sympathies and well wishes to those directly and indirectly effected by this disaster.
Only a small number of people may read this, but I feel it is still worth asking people to donate to the Australian Red Cross Haiti Earthquake Appeal.
This video, as stated on youtube, is based on a song called 'Touch Someone', written in December 2009, to help those in despair. It was written by a Haitian-American.
I would like to offer my deepest sympathies and well wishes to those directly and indirectly effected by this disaster.
Only a small number of people may read this, but I feel it is still worth asking people to donate to the Australian Red Cross Haiti Earthquake Appeal.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Terminating the Digital Age: Revenge of the Traditional Artist
As we enter further into the technology era, I wish to bring back to the forefront of people's minds the more traditional art forms that seem to have been brushed aside for the digital age (and yes, I realise writing this on an internet blog seems rather silly).
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
My Pride, My Pride
Wasn't sure whether to post this or not, but I suppose it's a new year's resolution to maintain the attitude; 'why not?'. It's definitely a work in progress though.
****
My Pride, My Pride
When the pillars of night, succumb to the day,
My roar will force form from disarray.
I look on heroically; I will never retreat,
Oh, my pride, my pride.
I will race to the edges and never look back,
I will round all the zebras til white melts with black,
My mane will not quiver in the morning frost,
Oh, my pride, my pride.
My thirst is to living, as rain is to life,
With our paws to the ground, we will conquer this strife,
With the earth as our flesh and the sun as our heart,
Oh, my pride, my pride.
(C) Copyright
****
My Pride, My Pride
When the pillars of night, succumb to the day,
My roar will force form from disarray.
I look on heroically; I will never retreat,
Oh, my pride, my pride.
I will race to the edges and never look back,
I will round all the zebras til white melts with black,
My mane will not quiver in the morning frost,
Oh, my pride, my pride.
My thirst is to living, as rain is to life,
With our paws to the ground, we will conquer this strife,
With the earth as our flesh and the sun as our heart,
Oh, my pride, my pride.
(C) Copyright
Survival of the lazy?
For a race so intellectual and innovative, it is nonsensical to think we couldn’t find a viable alternative to wildlife culling and slaughter. Instead, it seems we continue to thrash about in the clutches of human nature; exhibiting greed and selfishness, expending more energy and cash only in areas we deem beneficial to us.
Ahem. Now I’ve probably scared people with that rather angry sounding opening, I’ll get on with discussing what I’m on about.
Ahem. Now I’ve probably scared people with that rather angry sounding opening, I’ll get on with discussing what I’m on about.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Progress For Progress
I think it's a pretty widely known thing that people like debating and, even more so, people like being right. The recent Copenhagen Climate Summit is, I think, a good example of why debate doesn't often lead to resolution; especially large scale debates between nations or other big groups. The Summit did result in an agreement, but nothing legally binding. So, basically, all talk and little action; keeping up appearances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)