Some thoughts on morality

"Well, you know the old formula: Comedy equals tragedy plus time. And you have been asleep for a while. So I guess it's actually pretty funny when you do the math." -GLaDOS on tragedy.

1. DUALITY

Must there be darkness for there to be light?

In the pursuit of goodness, whatever that means, this question may have propped up to "benefactors" frequently. If bad morality is so unsettling, why have humans not eradicated it? One explanation might be that there are more humans inclined towards evilness than goodness, or that evilness empower a human so much that even when the "bad sector" is small, it eclipses humanity/morality in its impact. The problem with this theory is that it treats humans as monotonous entities instead of spectra, which is definitely a bad assumption, seen simply by personal observations or any degree of introspection: It would be quite absurd to say that I (or you) are different from how everyone operates because of the sheer improbability (why would it be me among all who acts differently?). Perhaps some may find the benefits drawn from "vices" outrun those drawn from "morality", but this does not completely exclude the possibility of them to commit any good.

Another reason behind this might be that humanity is too scattered to perform any significant impact on the world. Those who happen to be able to are (inexplicably) tied to evilness because of the corruption of power. I believe this thought does align with what I believe, that selflessness is difficult in individuals, rare in groups and impossible in species. Despite my misanthropic tendencies, I do still not view the average pedestrian as conspiring and immoral. To the extreme, I would treat them as amoral. The point here is that the average person seems to not be infested with bad morals. Yet, it should be noted that the "average" person does not possess much power, and could not impact the world in any meaningful way, to any significant degree. Perhaps it is rather difficult to probe the reason behind all the acts of malevolence after all, and at the end of the day we might account this simply to the "switching-off" of some mechanism within our brain when we actually make a moral decision, regardless of how blatantly obvious the morality behind sides.

It is, however, easy to overlook the possibility that it is not the humans making decisions that are at fault, but the decisions themselves. It is common to see that one decision would conform to a school of thought for morality while simultaneously going against another school completely. Behind an atrocity there might be well justified reasons and events leading up to this inevitable tragedy. Then, it is quite unfair to judge anything, because everything is more or less linked together deterministically throughout that is is quite impossible to isolate single events to enforce a judgment, if this stream of argument were to be followed. This is perhaps why there is a clear distinction between the study of macroscopic worlds and microscopic ones. To unify these require knowledge and traces of an infinite amount it might as well be deemed impossible. To link together macroscopic observations and microscopic psychology of individuals, similarly, is an insurmountable task.

Therefore, it may be useful to think of light as the complement of darkness, good as the complement of evil, and vice versa. In other words, one cannot exist without the other. The moment evil vanishes from the surface of this planet, there would no longer be good either. I would daresay that there would no longer be what we call humanity right now as well. Conscience and altruism constitute us just as much as selfishness, greed and malice. As much as I would like it for humans to better themselves in terms of benevolence over time, evil must exist to balance the deed, for when everyone is a savior, no one is.

2. ON THE VACUOUS NATURE OF ALTRUISM

I originally intended this to be a rational inspection on vegetarianism/veganism, and why I refuse to commit to this cause, but I could not come up with any good ideas on what to write. So instead I looked deeper into what I think of causes generally deemed "altruistic", or morally correct for the betterment of the society/the future of humanity.

Almost by definition of the word, to advocate a cause and not fully act it out is deemed "hypocritical". I condemn no one in favour of these causes, but what is the goal of such actions? The alleviation of suffering, of selfishness, the actuation of kindness and altruism are often brought up. In general, it is morally sound to carry out these actions. Therefore, I deem it reasonable to reduce such actions to those intended for the "betterment of morality".

There are two components to this: Firstly, betterment. This could be quantified as advantages given to humans (or in this case, animals). I use the word "quantified" here for a good reason, as it is impossible to concretely do so. One cannot say that veganism is more noble of a cause than, say, environmentalism. If you insist on helping animals by not eating meat, then why are you not abandoning your phone and computer to save electricity? This saves animals more in the long run, creating a stabler climate for them to not go extinct. Meanwhile, consumption of meat drives breeding of domestic livestock. This is, quite undeniably, a form of "betterment" as well. To advocate one cause while ignoring one? That sounds like hypocrisy.

Secondly, morality. What is morality? If you claim that eating meat is a violation of animal rights and hence morality, I could say that not eating meat is a violation of morality because my parents want me to do so. Obeying what is said by parents (filial piety) is a form of morality in Eastern cultures, often put at much higher importance than other clauses, in fact. If there were a religion dedicated to the worship of plants, this cause would violate its morals. Hence, morality is highly dependent on cultural factors and social environment. How do we accept some morality and reject others then? I believe it stems from what the public agrees to be the best course of action. This higher-level decision is eventually selfish, and by definition amoral as it goes beyond what can be described by morality. One must take some morality over others, and he/she shall face the consequences of taking such path. We may choose to condemn this morality, but the reason eventually must be irrational and personal.

I am fully aware of the copious amounts of strawmen I have erected in my arguments, but I am genuinely disgusted by anyone who claims to be morally correct and enforce their morals on me claiming to be rational. Sorry if this turned into a bit of a rant. I fully acknowledge your altruistic causes, but no one is in any position to condemn others on rational grounds for not following suit.

I do not claim to be anyhow an expert on Nietzsche, but from my first time reading his aphorisms I have fallen in love with his merciless criticism of so called "moralities". What he meant by "ubermensch", to my interpretation, is a man beyond the tethers of morality, beyond the bounds of the drive to do good or evil, but a man that can stand on his own without being swayed and led by arbitrary moral codes and conducts. Others may have different readings into this, but I have decided that this is where I want to eventually stand in terms of my take on morality.

http://ilarge.lisimg.com/image/7269615/968full-puella-magi-madoka-magica-the-movie-part-iii%3A-rebellion-screenshot.jpg

A Definite Alternative

If the real world is so deterministic and saddening, filled with imperfections, misinformation and limitations, does there exist a world for which these drawbacks are (even partially) mitigated? After all, it is natural for all to improve their lives, no matter how short it shall be. Even better, is there a perfect world beyond which we can perceive that immortalizes us? This is perhaps what a lot is searching for.

Enter the Internet, a series of layers and protocols encapsulating messages to be sent worldwide. The birth of this wonder has spawned an entirely new generation of humanity. Our lives are so radically changed by this invention that I find it hard to imagine what I used to do when I had no dial-up just about ten years ago. The Internet allowed people across oceans to reach in a heartbeat, for learning to be a few clicks away, for us to transcend what we can do within local communities and collaborate as an entirety, spawning giants of information and knowledge such as Wikipedia, or networks such as Facebook, Youtube.  With this great phenomenon comes an urgent need for a radically new set of ethics and morality. How do we balance freedom of speech with an explosion of voices, some of which may be malicious? How do we trust what we see? How can we maintain our privacy? Can we assume what a person says on the Internet is what he really means?

More importantly, are we truly ourselves on the Internet?

The answer to this seems to be a no-brainer: Of course we are ourselves, or at least an extension of ourselves in the most direct way: We actively control what we say and what we share on this web of information through what buttons we click or not click. We also are not obligated to stare at the screen and can turn off the computer any time we want, though most do (read: I do). In the age of freedom, this basic ability to control what we do is clearly assumed and expected. At least this is what we believe, but is this really true?

This is quite precisely the concern for Serial Experiments Lain, the (rather infamously) impenetrably abstract animation dealing with, quite vaguely, the issues of technology and identity. In this show, an initially quite technologically inept Lain receives a message from her classmate Chisa, who ostensibly should have been dead. This prompted her to investigate into getting onto the "Wired" (or Internet). I don't claim to have understood most of the message behind, but it is interesting to see that the show splits Lain into not a duality but a trinity of personalities: The Lain in real life, being shy, withdrawn and introverted, the conscious Lain on the Wired, curious and determined to find out more about the unconscious Lain, who apparently commits crimes and controls a group of worshipers known as the Knights. The show interestingly uses the multiple representations of the Japanese language along with English to represent Lain in three different forms (玲音, レイン, Lain). What is emphasized here, though, is that though they are three distinct psyches, they are contained within the same person.

Lain is seen to repeatedly utter to herself, amidst the ambient electric wire noise, that "Lain is Lain." She is herself, and so should you be you, and I be, well, me. I believe that it is quite unnerving if one were to discover an alternate psyche that one cannot control, or simply is quite different from what we are in real life. We all suspend our questioning of whether we can control our actions, because it is quite blatantly obvious from what we do on a daily basis.

Of course, the split personalities of Lain is a gross exaggeration, but in my opinion it might not be far from truthful. After all, on the Internet, we are immersed in a totally different environment. Messaging allows us to think before we speak, and hide our expressions. We can even go without an identity, or impersonate another identity. In fact, this communication protocol allows us to do so much that some may find the real world lackluster, finding no meaning to live in the real world anymore (this is apparently the justification for Chisa's death). On the Internet, we might find a continuation, an extension of what we think our lives would have been, or a replacement of what we are. It is then quite unsurprising that the Internet has gained such popularity in the past decade.

At times, I feel that this is incredibly dangerous. The rate at which the Internet expands is unbelievable, and most certainly uncontrollable. It has become a vital part of our voice, and warrants freedom of speech, and with multiple confusing identities it is quite impossible to track who is who. Yet can we allow the Internet to expand without tether at all? Will truth be eclipsed in the face of lies fabricated by the uncontrollable explosion of information?

Even worse, psyches on the Internet might actually be the uncontrollable. In the show, Lain on the Wired can kill, yet after every time Lain kills someone, Lain in the real world has no idea. If uncontrollable personalities continue to proliferate on this alternate dimension, technological singularity is just around the corner, as the intelligence of the Internet grows to be larger than the real world. It could even create the case where not joining the Internet causes one to be so ostracized, that he/she might as well be dead as he does not "exist" anymore. The virtual world then eclipses the real world quite literally.

Knowledge and technology go hand in hand in one direction only: growth. There is no denying that the Internet is an inevitable creation as humans yearn for social connections due to their tendencies as social animals. Eventually, the world will be covered with the Internet that it would be possible to track every single person's location, appearance and even thoughts with machines. In fact, the show illustrates this through the quest of two "men in black" ordered by their client to try to stop the Wired from taking over the world by contacting Lain, and when they eventually killed off the Knights, their work was "finished." When their client pays them, telling them to disappear into where the Wired is not reachable to avoid danger, they find themselves helpless. Thus, the Internet, in my opinion, is the strongest weapon ever invented. Then, it is not a possibility, but a necessity and an inevitability, that we move ourselves and our intelligence to the Internet, and flourish in this alternative world. All these hypotheses seem quite daunting, but I believe that in this deterministic world, it would be impossible for humans, as a selfish group as a whole, not to attempt to harness this unbounded power promised by the Internet, and be the next Knights united to leach off power from the almighty Lain of the Wired.

"Arisu?"

The Missing Beat (On "Sound! Euphonium")

When I first heard of this anime, I did not have high expectations, with the reason being that it could turn into the biggest stereotypical moeblob extremely easily. After all, the premise is set so perfectly for this to happen: High-school, club activities, slice of life style etc. It is almost screaming the cliches I already had in mind at my face. What I got instead was a pleasant surprise, a production that not only succeeded in technicalities but also engaged my emotions very well.

Sound! Euphonium does not beat around the bush. It throws the viewer right into the fray, right into the high school band left in quite a dissociated state with a change of advisor and a mediocre performance in the past. The plot is narrated from, for the majority, the point of view of Oumae Kumiko, who I would say has nothing extraordinary to start with. Under the influence of the enthusiasm of the newcomers, especially Reina Kousaka, the club's desire to get into the national competition is rekindled. The development of Kumiko as a character parallels the club's growing spirit to endure through hardships and challenges to realize the collective dream.

As I mentioned above, the best thing about this show is how it succeeds in avoiding cliches. Reina could have easily been the twin sister of Rei Ayanami, or the epitome of tsundere; Taki could have been devil's spawn and strict in every way; Instead, all these characters were given depth and an alternate side to their personality, making them resemble real people. This is probably the reason why the plot, despite not involving matter of life and death, being simply the experience of a typical high school club, managed to grip me tightly throughout its runtime.

In this show, I see the concepts of realism and idealism being challenged. The angst of motivating a group of people to pursue a dream that has never been achieved before, of struggling to achieve more than any other can do. To others (and perhaps to me), music is but a vessel of emotions or ideas. To this band, we see music being the goal, the hallmark of hard work and improvement and realization of their dreams. As the band members improve over time, what was once mere talk transforms to reality. This transformation, too, is presented very well throughout the series.

It might be quite strange for me to talk about this feeling of actualization, since if I were one of the characters in the show, I would be Saitou Aoi, a rather insufficient player who cannot take the constant pressure to play difficult parts because of an innate lack of skills. Eventually, she chose to focus on academics and left the band, just as I did five years ago. Indeed, I was filled with cynicism and disdain to those who were more skilled in the trade. They probably put more effort into practicing, and had a greater skillset. I was overwhelmed with something probably akin to jealousy, and, under the pressure of constantly having to skip lessons, I quit without looking back.

I would not say that I was totally blinded by this cynicism towards teamwork and idealism though, as I still hold to some of these views, yet after viewing this show I reconsidered whether the decision to leave the orchestra for me was wise. It was quite clear that I did not have the dexterity and hand-eye coordination, as I still struggle with some basic techniques (I picked up erhu when I was 9 or so, so it's been like 10 years now). Of course this is mostly due to a severe lack of practice and motivation. What this show made me do, perhaps, was to reconsider whether it would have been worth it to push further with this art, to practice until my fingers hurt, to not be daunted with natural disabilities. Even if eventually I were not good enough, as in Katou Hazuki's case, I would have stuck to the orchestra, and witnessed their achievements as the sidekick. Perhaps some of the excitement of actualization and achievement would have spilled over to me as I pretend to have been a part of their efforts, and I would not have been such a cynic.

In any case, I will let the past be what it is: The past, the unchangeable and clearly written history. Again, for a show probably not intended to be densely packed with feels, it does an excellent (rather creepily excellent in fact) job of inciting so many thoughts in my mind. My only criticism would be it short length impairing the development of some key plot elements. Otherwise, this show easily beats most I have seen and deserves the highest praise.



I admit I am a fanatic of OPs and EDs. Also sorry for 1999.

On the human instinct and slave-oriented mind

“假如一間鐵屋子，是絕無窗戶而萬難破毀的，裡面有許多熟睡的人們，不久都要悶死了，然而是從昏睡入死滅，並不感到就死的悲哀。現在你大嚷起來，驚起了較為清醒的幾個人，使這不幸的少數者來受無可挽救的臨終的苦楚，你倒以為對得起他們麼？”

“然而幾個人既然起來，你不能說決沒有毀壞這鐵屋的希望。”

With these words, Lu Xun cried out, and called the Chinese to arms in the wake of the largest change encountered ever in Chinese history, in a period when I would say is the closest China has come to modernity and civilization. It is hugely ironic how this all has been reversed by the rise of CCP, reverting us, de facto, back to the ages of imperialism, corruption and extreme crony Capitalism. However, I suspect that nothing has actually changed. The narrow mindset of the Chinese, fixated only on material goals and competing with others for a better future for themselves has never changed throughout history, passing on generation to generation, forever enforcing this regime of tyranny and nepotism.

Yet, I shall not talk about such a macroscopic issue (with me being not a fit person to make a political commentary anyway). I wish to explore the boundary between coercion and willingness. If all (significant) actions reduce to some factors beyond our control, or simply due to the drive known as "human instincts".

"Human instincts", though possibly driven by the society, could also simply be a will to survive and thrive, to stand the test of time and ever transient conditions. I suppose they are mutually encompassing though, since humans are inherently (and perhaps unfortunately) social. It could also be interpreted as a tendency to fall back to an equilibrium state, or the "comfort zone".

I consider every person as having a certain amount of energy to expend. To leave the "comfort zone" requires a certain amount of "activation energy". However, once this energy barrier is broken, one might settle to a new equilibrium, in which one's experience has changed one's perception of the world, and as such his/her "comfort zone" will have changed.

What makes us unique, then, could be inferred as different perceptions of the "comfort zone". Some may find socializing relaxing, where being in a party would be his/her comfort zone. For some, perhaps staying in would be preferable. I pass no judgment to any kind of interpretation towards "comfort zones" as long as basic morality is not violated. (what this standard is perhaps warrants another discussion separately)

Could we infer from this that there is, in reality, a boundary that consistently restrict free will, if "free will" is to be interpreted as complete spontaneity in action, limiting to the speed of the freely thinking mind? It seems that any reference to "free will" necessitates comparison. Say in "感冒" by 西西, the protagonist is described to spontaneously go watch a football match in spite of the gender stereotype imposed on housewives. Free will here then refers to removing the tether of social perception of the type of person defined by the circumstances of the protagonist. However, in this vastly multivariate world, what, precisely, is the tether? What is preventing us from becoming truly the masters of ourselves?

If we look back in history, where people's lives are always confined by social norms that do seem quite eccentric and barbaric currently, such as absolute loyalty to superiors, the emperor, to a certain religion, certain practices etc. Today we are glad that we have grown out of the lives that had to be lived by people of the past (for most, at least). Nevertheless, we could always extend this logic to conclude that our lives would be considered conservative and uncivilized in 50 years, and their lives would again be subjected to such perception by those 50 years later, and so on.

As humans grasp greater and greater understanding of nature, engineers are ever more able to harness the power of nature to humanity's benefit. What will this mean for freedom? On one hand, we could have the rise of a technocracy of malice and inhumane minds, controlling crucial secretive weapons to threaten the world. On the other hand, we could eliminate the suffering of those in poverty by increased technology, leading to greater capabilities of production and trade.

Thus, the tether is a social phenomenon, and this progresses quite randomly through history. We know not what future holds, and what challenges face us even in the vicinity of the present. What does not change, however, is the human instinct: To survive and thrive.

This is why I have to come to the conclusion that humans possess a "slave-oriented mind". Our actions are eventually defined by our identity, our place in the society. Even if we live in the so-called free world right at this moment, it is incorrect to say that we are not tethered to anything. the meta-narrative is omnipresent, and spontaneous actions performed by a human in the matter of tens of years cannot possibly change anything.

There are exceptions though. A person may have such an expanded world view that his/her actions are directly aimed at improving the livelihood of those in the future. He/she may work tirelessly, perpetually and perhaps extremely staunchly simply for the betterment of the world. Yet, I do think that this is quite a rarity, and in groups this is even more of an extremity. If his/her goals deviate from the meta-narrative of the society by a great deal, a very large resistance is bound to be formed and he/she would not be able to achieve much unless under miraculous circumstances. He/she may then be deemed as an idol, a benefactor of history. Yet, more often he/she may gain notoriety instead, and even more so may just fade in failure, never to be heard of again. I daresay that the average human would not be so brave to put his/her life on the lines for such a vague concept of humanity.

It is a saddening fact that uncivil and horrendous acts, ideas and governors continue to exist unabashedly in the present day, with so many people astonished by the stupidity and acts of evil produced repeatedly. It is even more saddening that these people simply cannot be stopped. When the evils of the present stop, more will rise. It is simply human nature for everyone to ignore these acts and stay down. For one person to leave his comfort zone, it may not require much. For a million to leave their comfort zone though is something that only exists in fiction. Probabilistically it is almost as if all gas particles of a room would suddenly coalesce together into a solid ball and come down crashing on the status quo. We count of thermodynamics that this simply will not happen, just as I count on human instincts that this world, no matter how I look at it, is eventually nihilistic.

I admire the courage of Lu Xun. Eventually, quite metaphorically saying, the iron house did break down after his life. Little did he know, though, that the iron house was, in fact, contained within another iron house with walls twice the thickness.

Instrumentality

"時に　西暦２０１６年
人々の失われたモノ
すなわち、心の補完は続いていた"

July is an interesting time I look forward to, not only because of the end of exams, but also because of the commencement of the timeline detailed in Neon Genesis Evangelion, the first proper anime I watched. While procrastinating, I decided to revisit one of the most confusing and controversial episodes of the original series, episode 26. While not being a fan of rewatching as I find knowing the ending usually spoiling my enjoyment, I found great and newfound value gained from reviewing this particular episode after one whole year.

(A commentary on the last episode of the series would naturally contain spoilers, so the following is supposedly quite spoiler heavy. Also, these are but my own interpretations and might not be the best after all)

FEAR

Everyone carries responsibilities, someone to account to, something to account for. From these we derive our schedule, our routine of things to do during the day, plans to carry out throughout the year. What we view is, however, still but a small fraction of our course of life. So, largely, we are unaware that these define the stages of our life, or identity as I have mentioned for so many times. What differs us from computers running instructions and expectations is how we view the process and the outcome. A computer is neutral to all feelings: It would not protest against running the same code thousands and thousands of times. It would not feel bad if a part of a program failed to execute. In contrast, we, as humans,derive satisfaction from completing tasks. We feel overwhelmed when we are tasked with too much work or too high of an expectation. Most importantly, we fear the uncertainty of the future. Computers are, after all, deterministic machines, so it is natural for them to have no fear. Once we set foot into unknown territories of time though, we are overcome with the task to remain afoot, to not let uncertainty and irrationality wash over our conscious mind.

This is what SEELE has in its mind for the Human Instrumentality Project. To become one means the integration of all variables known as humans in the function known as the society. Much like molecules of gas in the atmosphere, the sheer infinity of our minds and the plethora of ideas that erupts forth from such minds are uncontrollable, unpredictable and irrational. These qualities are exactly what some may think as "dangerous". Bringing all to one reduces this equation to a simple assertion of one variable, which quickly becomes a constant.

However, why did Shinji reject instrumentality? All was bleak for him in the vicinity of the ending: Asuka losing her sanity over the lack of praise, angels getting stronger and stronger, carrying out psychological attacks, having to kill probably the one and only one understanding friend Kaworu with his own hands. Shinji has fallen to a paradox: Were he to run away, he would lose his meaning of life: As the only compatible pilot for EVA-01; were he to stay, his suffering and angst would simply continue. He came to the conclusion that everybody basically hates him, unless he does something remarkable with EVA-01. Hence, he says to himself

"I mustn't run away."

He must put himself on the rack again and again, for this is the only way he has found to live. And thus,

"Eva itself will be yourself."

At this rate, with the fleeting world around him, there would be no reason to reject instrumentality. It gives man a reason to exist: To be part of the greater collective, to combine the strength of all to iron out the weaknesses of individuals, to transcend the limit of humans, known as emotion and insecurity.

THE WORLD WITH NOBODY

"What is this? The world with nothing in it?"

Perhaps if we remove the prospect of humanity and the like, and replace it with lifeless void, we would be better. In the case of Shinji, I daresay that what occurred would have better not occurred. Wouldn't it be good if what he was experiencing right now was merely an illusion, a harmless nightmare that would dissolve once someone pinches him? This is instrumentality: By uniting everyone, we eliminate others as they are no longer "others", but "me" or "us". A singular entity does not have any rivalry, any companion, or any friends. And since the human mind is already so convoluted, the combined intelligence would most likely, working in unison, be all knowing, not unlike the Sibyl system in Psycho-Pass. It would be the ultimate augmentation to any singular human, yet it also removes all that we know of as "surroundings". There would be no more expectations and rules set by others to be obeyed irrationally. Everything is free.

Yet, such a world, even if it does exist, would not be desirable. An astronaut floating free from the tethers of gravity (provided that he has infinite oxygen and food) could as well float forever, but he would eventually wish to return to earth, for it is his home. It is his home because it simply is the environment he is used to be in. Without this environment, he would feel unnatural, or even not survive. An appropriate analogy would be how our body would explode under zero pressure environment and be fine under the immense pressure of the atmosphere, as opposed to the much more reasonable, rational opposite. We were born to this world with expectations that we would perform our duties as a child pious to his parents, obedient to his teachers, respectful to his seniors, nice to his peers, share some interests with the public. People who fail to do so would be outcasts, almost by definition. The sense of "unfreedom" is so ingrained inside us that it becomes unnatural to remove this apparent barrier to happiness. Are we doomed to live unfulfilling lives by simply being ourselves?

"In the act of observing others you may find yourself."

Therefore, we fall into the same paradox: the more people around us, the more we suffer from expectations and norms. Yet, with no one around us, we lose our meaning of existence. Shinji is doomed to exile, or simply stay in NERV and endure the psychological torture day by day. He is either something abhorrent, or nothing at all.

A NEW POSSIBILITY?

You may have noticed that the paradox I mentioned occurs in extremes. Most people we see around us are normal, typical individuals who are seemingly not affected by this thought (perhaps the cryptic reality scene in EoE alludes to this). How is this so? Anno tells us that the answer lies in "perspectives". Asuka doesn't have to be a pilot who repeatedly was trying to gain praise to fulfill her desire of self-worth. Instead she could be Shinji's childhood friend, waking him up for school. Rei does not have to be the vessel of humanity, and sacrifice her humanity for instrumentality. She could be the typical shy student in the same class as Shinji. Perhaps a decent show could have emerged under these circumstances. Throughout the whole show we see the perspectives of Shinji and Asuka, yet who said we must follow their footsteps? Who said that the kids must not exist outside of being a pilot? Why can't they have a different dictation of their story, of their identity, and of their lives? Anno wished us to break free of his grasp, to explore the reality away from the imaginary world of NGE, to gain your own version of truth, your own interpretation of your story, of Shinji's story, of Asuka's story, of everyone around you.

Once you break free of the tethers of objective existence, characterized by others' expectations, you start to truly live, and to this Anno says to you:

"Congratulations!"

For me, though, to this I raise the possibility of the objectivity of tragedy. Though the human mind and emotions are flexible, is there such thing as an infinitely versatile mind/interpretation? Would something hit us so hard that it is impossible to recover? Would there be forever a vestige of doubt, of melancholy, of selfish desire left after all the attempts at reinterpreting a situation, just as Homura from Madoka Magica had? I liked to use the excuse of "forgetfulness" to resolve regrets, yet does it always work? In philosophy, this would be the epitome of non-rigour, of hand-waving. To this question, then, I have yet to find an answer.

CONCLUSION: EMBRACING THE UNIVERSE

I believe that there is always a motivation or reason behind everything. There is a reason why the wind blows, a reason why the flower grows, a reason why water flows; a reason why there is love, and hatred, and melancholy, and happiness. Therefore, there must be a reason why we live, why Shinji rejects instrumentality as the final answer, why we all walk in the crowd, yet have our own individual self without questioning the absurdity of that. Given the lifespan of humans being quite a long time, I would assume that most would have thought about this matter somehow, to a certain extent. Why are we still able to embrace the universe and fate as it is, as cruel and unforgiving as it is? Anno throws this question at us and attempts to answer it, encouraging us to think about it ourselves through this animation.

Provided that my life would be sufficiently long, this will be one of the many questions that I probably would not have an answer till the vicinity of my death. Yet, I do look forward to any time that a new light could shine on me for this problem at hand.

Amazing how an anime of 20 years old is still so relevant today, isn't it?

What is also interesting is how people of 20 years ago sees 2015.

Credit to http://www.animanga.com/scripts/textesgb/eva26.html, http://www.stevegilham.com/nge/congratulations.jpg.

Decretum

Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow...

What do you think you are doing? What do you want? Why are you here? For years I have been asking myself these questions. I live for myself, fight for myself, for surviving another day in this ruthless world of competition. But then you appeared, and I stopped questioning myself, for you are, by any measure, a much more interesting person to question than myself.

From the first time I saw you I find you laughable, perversely detached from reality. To fight for justice, to fight for happiness, hope, order... How ridiculous. Life is too short to care about anything other than your own survival. How many times do you have to fail to learn this?

In some sense I understand how you feel. Your happiness derives from others'. Yet, isn't this the worst form of disability? To rely on others all the time, to depend on situations where uncertainty rules high for your own well-being. Only foolish girls would fall for this blatant trap.

Aren't we all specks on the never ceasing arrow of entropy? Our existence has always been doomed to end in an entropic manner. No one can reverse the force of irreversibility. It is a written law above us all. So you think you, making a wish for someone who doesn't even love you, would somehow reverse this never-ending cycle of doom? I am here to tell you miracles are thus named because they do not happen. The laws of this universe do not operate on sympathy.

Red. All the red around us. The colour of blood, of sacrifice, of fiery passion. How fitting in this occasion. In you I have found my past, my foolish self who never doused her flames of destructive fantasies. I, like you, have only recently been revealed to the truth. It almost took your life, yet you continue to march majestically into this gaping trench. Is your life worth so little that you are willing to throw away for nothing?

How ironic that the most beautiful insects are also the most deadly, the brightest flames destroys the most, that the most kind-hearted person brings upon the most tragic death. And now, the hopeful of them meets the most aloof, so desensitised to the tragedy of our kind. Perhaps it is true after all that the extremes always merge back into a cycle, as if time loops around itself, and I am here to meet my own self again. How ironic, that I now shall fight myself. What have you done, Fate? The mighty sorceress, who transcends time and space, lusting over the glowing essence of all that we call hope, till all that remains is but an empty core of despair over extinguished candles.

My concerto is coming to an end. The brass flourish, tremolo from the strings, trills from the winds... All instruments awaiting for the final swing of my bow. So let me defy you once, Fate, let me defy you just once. Let me be both death and her maiden, and seal my last vestige into this realm.

Identity

(Way overdue from November last year. In before why not Chinese cartoons?)

His life lasted for merely 61 years, yet he has seen the rise and fall of three dynasties, the struggle for the people who had been slaves of his race for three centuries rise up against him, with himself going from an oblivious emperor living inside the golden shell of a palace to nothing but dust, among hundreds of millions of others, witnessing the tumultuous birth of what China is today. What would such a man recognize himself as? Does he even have an identity?

I came across the TV series Extraordinary Citizen (非常公民) a few months ago (while procrastinating during the IB exams), which portrayed the last emperor of Qing, Aisin-Gioro Puyi with superb attention of him as a person instead of what role he fulfills in the eyes of the common folk. Though the show centres upon his romantic life (which is also quite interesting), it is the candid portrayal of Puyi's psyche as he was, suddenly in the middle of his childhood, ripped from his position by the breaking out of the revolution, eventually declining into being the puppet of the Japanese empire, and even as a war prisoner to be "re-educated" by Russian and Chinese Communists that interested me the most. After wasting half of his life trying to fulfill his delusion to be an emperor, in the process sacrificing his dignity, his power, his freedom, and eventually his sanity and, most importantly, his identity as a person. The incredible detail carved onto Puyi makes the man marking the end of imperial China extremely easy to relate, as I learnt how Puyi, the supposedly most powerful person in the whole of China, was still unable to escape the flow of time, floating helplessly as a piece of log.

Puyi threw away his love, his life and his humanity for one sole purpose: To search for his lost identity. He lived the first two decades of his life as an emperor (unofficially, as he was unaware of). When the truth of his powerlessness eventually broke in (fairly well hidden from him by the officials around him), he sought to stay as an emperor, and eventually, under the convincing of the Japanese, willingly gave in everything. He knew of nothing but to be an emperor, as his whole life hitherto was filled with this role. He had no skills, but an enormous ego, an ego that all emperors were taught to have and reasonably possessed and infinitely inflated. To him, this ego is everything, everything his life meant.

Today, we look at Puyi askance, wondering why he betrayed his people, questioning the true motives behind his actions. Yet, his life of frantic search for an identity poses a very profound challenge to what we mean by purpose; specifically, the purpose of life, the ultimate purpose. The meaning of life (certainly not 42) is complex, and no one would claim to have/be able to grasp it fully in his/her short life. This turns me to wonder if the search of meaning itself is the meaning itself, that when we realize the vastness of possibilities and uncertainty do we, ironically, begin our search and consolidate the meaning of life.

Here, identity plays an important role. To have an identity means to be realized as a part of a community, to play a role in the course of history, and perhaps to make a mark, because we know that only through this can we make ourselves permanent in memory of the future, that we can be remembered as what we want to be remembered as. Thus, I daresay that this makes us immortal to a certain extent. With immortality being one of the dreams of humanity, identity, defining the direction of human life, perhaps has become what we mean by life itself.

In this ever changing world, almost nothing stays constant, even if it is not always apparent as in Puyi's world. To become an identifiable person is more and more of a challenge in the age of dream-seeking, with fate forever diverting the expected course of life. Yet, can we still embrace this rapid and uncertain flow? Can we get hold of what we are currently, and live with acceptance but vision?

For me, forgetfulness comes to play.