"I was told that I am just one of the countless specks of dust on this p-lanet,
But that is something I cannot yet comprehend.
[...]
I have no choice but to pretend that
I am a warrior who knows no fear."
One of the many marks of maturity would be the diminishing of fear. Or at least, apparently. When we were children, we would fear the dark, fear for ghosts, fear for new places, new people. In response, we protest and struggle to try to alleviate this emotion. Thus, fear is generally unpleasant, and for an adult, something to be suppressed, a shameful emotion perhaps. Yet, as it turns out, this emotion is rather pertinent, and is actually one of the driving forces of humanity.
A recent visit to the dentist made me, as the title suggests, "revisit" fear. It has been a good while since my last visit, approximately seven years or so. Then, I was at the stage where teeth had to be removed, and this indeed caused great fear. This time, there was a fear of having wisdom teeth to be removed. Having low tolerance of pain, it was natural for me to dread this appointment.
Yet, I asked myself: What was it that I fear? Surely, to conquer a fear, one must know what exactly it is, to perceive this emotion in an analytical manner. I knew that if I had abnormal growth, an operation which could be quite painful was inevitable. Perhaps it was the uncertainty related to my speculation of the probability this rather tragic outcome were to happen. Indeed, fear stems from uncertainty. If everything were to be predictable, there would be no reason to speculate, or rather put any thought into this future. This could be why a god is always portrayed as a calm and stoic individual, as he/she always knows what will happen.
Was it all uncertainty? A person about to encounter tragedy he/she knows is going to happen will still exhibit symptoms of fear, as far as I am concerned. It might be irrational hope that the tragedy might not actually happen, that there would be a slimmer of chance to change the future. In this case, the hope ironically introduces uncertainty, and hence inspires fear. In case of pain, one tends to forget what pain really feels like since it is an abnormality (we are programmed to avoid pain as much as possible). One might know pain will happen, but would not know what the pain will be like. In other words, even if there is no objective uncertainty, subjective uncertainty quite often accompany fateful encounters, causing fear to be rather inevitable.
Is this a good thing? If one were to be able to remove the faculties of the brain responsible for fear, would one do that? While fear seems unpleasant, it seem to be an innate mechanism of the brain to control one's actions against recklessness when faced with uncertainty. After all, we are selfish creatures despite our strong tendencies to form societies. Fear is rather like a self-defense against overt enthusiasm, as the person we would want to protect when faced with danger should reasonably be ourselves.
This brings me to my next point about the image of a fearless person. Most probably, the traditional archetypal fearless character would be a hero, to attempt what is impossible for normal frightful people to achieve and arrive at a heroic conclusion. I also like to think of criminals and rejects in the society as fearless: They have to overcome the fear of being isolated, of castigation and punishment to be a deviant, to defy his/her own sense of pain to incite the same emotion on others (though we do this every day unwittingly). What lies beyond the norms and morality of the society is rather uncertain, and I suppose to traverse this boundary would require the greatest courage.
It is easy to antagonize fear, to shun fear and avoid encountering situations that incite fear. It is natural to fear fear itself, quite frankly. Yet, it forms an indispensable part of the spectrum known as human emotions. Emotions is one of the most important ways of learning, and is what everyone falls back to when the guise of rationality falls off. It dictates what we do and how we think. Of them all, fear holds one's thoughts together within reasonable boundaries, and, should I say, is the most powerful force that binds human behaviour, in a complexity and beauty for which no law ever created could rival.
OP Discussion 2: Puella Magi Madoka Magica OP, Connect
"The beautiful blue sky always waits for me
Therefore I'm not afraid
I won't be disheartened anymore no matter what happens."
The first show that reminds me of fear would be NGE, but this show would come to a close second.
Those who have seen this show would know that this OP seems to be rather unfitting for a show with an incredibly dark view upon fantastical powers of magical girls. It is not impossible to find traces of thematic concerns in this OP though, and upon closer examination it almost seems to be rich with hints and insinuations of the tragedies to come.
Simply paying attention to the visuals would lead to the conclusion that the show is a typical magical girl show (I say this, yet I have not actually seen a magical girls show but I guess the archetype is there): Magical girl gains power almost gratuitously, defeats evil, and saves the world which dared to underestimate her. The elements of the stereotype are all too clear: Light colour scemes, transformation sequences, fighting "monsters", slice-of-life activities with fellow magical girls, and, towards the end, Homura quite clearly displayed as an antagonist, perhaps about to engage in a fight with Madoka. Of course, all of these would prove to be either ironic or simply distractions as the show runs.
Taking the perspective of one who has already watched the show, one would focus on Madoka welling on tears at the beginning, her running towards some objective despite the constant rain, the "eye-opening" scene lasting for a split second, and appreciate the irony and symbolism of the elements presented above (such as Madoka appearing tired, which is quite reminiscent of the devastated Madoka upon hearing Kyubey's secrets).
He would also be drawn more to the song. Again, ostensibly innocent and sung in an upbeat tone, the lyrics talks about promises to march on despite the darkness ahead, despite overwhelming "shadows of anxiety," solely on the belief that there would be better days ahead. In most overblown drama series, lyrics like these are but vacuous decorations. Here, as I delved into the struggle of Madoka to see her idealistic and rather childlike faith of the world getting torn apart through witnessing her friends withering away in front of her, I felt that these words are actually coming alive.
If we choose to focus on Madoka, PMMM is definitely a fit candidate for a coming-of-age story, perhaps taken to an extreme. However, it is extremes that provide progress, and forces beauty to surface. Fear, for one example, pushes humans to extremes, cornering them and forcing them to anticipate bad consequences. For one, this OP successfully traversed the realm of two extremes, leaving a sensation of conflicts that resounded well after the show ended.
Credits to openings.moe
Tuesday, 20 October 2015
Thursday, 17 September 2015
Fictional Existence
" 'There is at least one good thing about TV,' he said after a while. 'You can shut it off whenever you like. And nobody complains.' "
Characters from fictional media, such as novels, short stories, poems, or television shows, movies etc. are distinguished from real life people primarily in the world they exist in. More generally, they lead a different type of existence to us. We know that something is not real based on the way it interacts (or does not) with this world. I shall call their way of "existing" fictional existence.
Is fictional existence a form of existence? Perhaps from the way I name it the answer would seem to be yes. One that would argue that an idea or a concept, something abstract, exist would certainly agree that fictionally existing is indeed a valid method of existence, where the said object in question exists in people's minds. However, even if you think an idea does not really exist, a fictional character seems to be much more than an idea, or at least well composed ones do. One can specify the character's traits, actions, habits, demeanors just as done with a normal concrete person. A person hosts a lot of ideas in his/her life, and so do reasonable fictional characters. Should the reality of a fictional character be of a higher order than a mere idea then? After all, actors are trained to suspend their real identity and pretend to exist in a parallel universe under a different alias.
One could also claim that a fictional character exists within his/her universe. Such universe is bounded by the works attributed to it. A character from a show exists within the several hours the show is on air, and not otherwise. Yet, human perspective is horribly limited. One could never escape the first person viewpoint one was born into. This leads to everyone we know to be able to be perceived by a fraction of our lifetime, no matter how close the people in question are to us. Worse still, there are millions upon millions of people who we meet on the streets but never again, or not even meet at all. We hear from official statistics that there are a great number of people coexisting with us, yet we never perceive their existence. They are merely a number to us. Do they exist? Fictionally? (Or, ideally?)
I am sure some may have envied the lives of certain fictional characters. Selectively cutting out the boring details of life, or the tragic events that may occur is definitely attractive. Ironing out the possibility of encountering tragedy for a person living in a perfect world, even more so. However, if given the chance to be fictional, would it be accepted by the masses? As I mentioned before, good and evil are complementary and rather symbiotic. Are perfection and faults a symbiotic pair as well? I guess these questions are meant to be left to fantasy.
At this point I don't even know what this part of my thoughts is leading towards. Therefore, let's just say that fictionally existing entities are not far from us. In fact, everyone around us leads a rather abstract existence. We trust that we lead a real and full existence, and by symmetry and sheer probabilistic arguments we think that others do as well. However, the time we spend with others is limited, that most of their actions or thoughts are not relayed to us. Similarly, our time on this planet is also severely limited, that a lot of what we think will never be recorded. Those who have made a mark in history may be qualified to be the closest to be truly existing. Yet, we still only see a tiny fraction of their lives. Einstein would mostly be remembered for his theories of relativity, Hitler will be forever remembered as an evil dictator, Nietzsche for his proclamation of the death of god. To sum up a person by his interaction with this world is so inappropriate and bastardizing, yet for a fictionally existing entity, this is the only thing we could hope to do.
OP/ED Discussion 1: Watamote OP, Watashi ga Motenai no wa Dou Kangaetemo Omaera ga Warui
It is often the case that an opening theme attracts my attention enough for me to check out an anime. It is definitely an indispensable asset to the genre. Therefore, this is something I would like to try out. It is exactly what it says on the tin: I post a video of an OP/ED of a show I watched, and say something about it. So here we go:
"I'm on my way to finding my way.
Find your way to be courageous!"
I will kick this section off with this melancholic and rather furious outcry of an OP towards an ostracizing society that accepts no person such as Tomoko in Watamote, a reclusive and extremely introverted teenage girl constantly trying to fit into the environment she is in. Although the show itself was not presented in the best way possible, with overtly cringe-inducing moments permeating through the entirety as we witness the poor attempts of Tomoko in trying to socialize and make herself popular, this theme is not without its own charm.
The motif of imprisonment sustains through the video. Tomoko's struggles are vividly depicted as a convict breaking the chains holding her down. Apt analogies are drawn here, with Tomoko rather like a prisoner of the flashy society around her, an outcast rather. Being a deviant in a society pervaded by communication and expressionism perhaps often results in being trapped by the weird gazes of others, functioning within the norm. As opposed to a bright and glamorous stereotypical hero, we have an anti-hero here: Dark, scarred, creepy, delusional and sinful, trying to grab the sun and swallow it whole.
The music did not appeal to my ears for a good while, until I delved deeper into the show. It fits exactly the theme of the show and is not unlike what a monologue of Tomoko would sound like: Unfettered decry against the people who have it easy, people who do not have to endure the pain known as social anxiety. Its powerful and reverberating screams may at first hurt, but as the show progresses through it serves more than appropriately. Overall, a solid and fitting opening to a rather special and meta show.
Hopefully this can continue onward to each post in the future here. Credits to openings.moe.
Sunday, 6 September 2015
On discipline
子曰：「不憤不啟，不悱不發。舉一隅不以三隅反，則不復也。」(《論語·述而第七》)
The main reason that I would dread a career in education would be the inevitable encounter with students that are unmotivated and wasteful. No matter how patient and thought-out a teacher lays his plan, none would germinate on the student determined to not learn. Hence I greatly sympathize with the above quote, and do consider that education should be reserved only for those willing to learn and not those who simply have the financial capability to.
Recently I came across this and thought a bit about the dichotomy presented in the styles of education between the British and the Chinese. I suppose, though, I should not claim the ostensibly "Chinese" method "Chinese" since I do believe this approach is taken widely elsewhere in Asia, such as Korea and Japan. (helps alleviate perhaps some prejudice based on the fact that it is "Chinese" as well) While the British method stresses on personal development, freedom to choose one's stance and attitude to learning, the Asian method tends to force students to be respectful to superiors and humbly learn from them, building a strong sense of heirarchy. In turn, the British students find it absurd to be disciplined by new teachers whom they had no previous experience with: they simply found no reason to act inferior and subdue to teachers, even regular ones, while the Chinese teachers found it ridiculous that one would not want to sit down, shut up and learn, as any sensible individual would want to equip themselves to face this ever more competitive world.
While I strongly value freedom, in both philosophical and practical terms, I also firmly endorse the power of discipline. One who cannot grasp the power to control oneself and place themselves on top of others based on delusional obsession with oneself deserves to fall and not the help from others. One can only use his freedom the moment he can handle it. This is why the Asian system is coarse and downright undesirable on the surface, but at the end produce better results and nurtures some true intellectuals. Those who can emerge powerful in reality would be those who can harness their own power through discipline, and this system enables the development of such mindset. While the British system claims to provide help to all, it unfortunately falls in irony as weaker individuals fall out as completely useless and unable to help themselves because of the aggrandization of their ego, becoming parasites to the society.
There are, however, aspects of the Asian education, as portrayed, that I disapprove of. Power comes from individuality and realization, not from conforming to herd instincts. The "national education" that comes with the Asian teaching in the example above actually disgusts me quite a bit. (The ideal world in my view would not have country borders at all, but that is a story for another time) The large class size also means that interaction with individual students is limited. Problems are thus more difficult to diagnose.
For a long time, I had been strongly influenced by Confucian thoughts. I declared those who disrespect those due for respect as my enemies. However, as I realized how corrupt human nature could be, I started to vow myself to uphold freedom of action and thought. Still, people who abandon their own lives do not deserve babysitting throughout their lives. Therefore, I would say that both sides have much to learn. Though the Asian side received better scores, they mean nothing much if students do not receive anything worthwhile to take away from school. Similarly, sheltering the students from the competitive edge of the world may make their school life quite a bit less miserable and stressed, but also is meaningless and actually detrimental to their well-being later on in their lives.
Also, Required Reading
The main reason that I would dread a career in education would be the inevitable encounter with students that are unmotivated and wasteful. No matter how patient and thought-out a teacher lays his plan, none would germinate on the student determined to not learn. Hence I greatly sympathize with the above quote, and do consider that education should be reserved only for those willing to learn and not those who simply have the financial capability to.
Recently I came across this and thought a bit about the dichotomy presented in the styles of education between the British and the Chinese. I suppose, though, I should not claim the ostensibly "Chinese" method "Chinese" since I do believe this approach is taken widely elsewhere in Asia, such as Korea and Japan. (helps alleviate perhaps some prejudice based on the fact that it is "Chinese" as well) While the British method stresses on personal development, freedom to choose one's stance and attitude to learning, the Asian method tends to force students to be respectful to superiors and humbly learn from them, building a strong sense of heirarchy. In turn, the British students find it absurd to be disciplined by new teachers whom they had no previous experience with: they simply found no reason to act inferior and subdue to teachers, even regular ones, while the Chinese teachers found it ridiculous that one would not want to sit down, shut up and learn, as any sensible individual would want to equip themselves to face this ever more competitive world.
While I strongly value freedom, in both philosophical and practical terms, I also firmly endorse the power of discipline. One who cannot grasp the power to control oneself and place themselves on top of others based on delusional obsession with oneself deserves to fall and not the help from others. One can only use his freedom the moment he can handle it. This is why the Asian system is coarse and downright undesirable on the surface, but at the end produce better results and nurtures some true intellectuals. Those who can emerge powerful in reality would be those who can harness their own power through discipline, and this system enables the development of such mindset. While the British system claims to provide help to all, it unfortunately falls in irony as weaker individuals fall out as completely useless and unable to help themselves because of the aggrandization of their ego, becoming parasites to the society.
There are, however, aspects of the Asian education, as portrayed, that I disapprove of. Power comes from individuality and realization, not from conforming to herd instincts. The "national education" that comes with the Asian teaching in the example above actually disgusts me quite a bit. (The ideal world in my view would not have country borders at all, but that is a story for another time) The large class size also means that interaction with individual students is limited. Problems are thus more difficult to diagnose.
For a long time, I had been strongly influenced by Confucian thoughts. I declared those who disrespect those due for respect as my enemies. However, as I realized how corrupt human nature could be, I started to vow myself to uphold freedom of action and thought. Still, people who abandon their own lives do not deserve babysitting throughout their lives. Therefore, I would say that both sides have much to learn. Though the Asian side received better scores, they mean nothing much if students do not receive anything worthwhile to take away from school. Similarly, sheltering the students from the competitive edge of the world may make their school life quite a bit less miserable and stressed, but also is meaningless and actually detrimental to their well-being later on in their lives.
Also, Required Reading
Friday, 14 August 2015
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.
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 |
Saturday, 25 July 2015
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?"
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?"
Wednesday, 15 July 2015
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.
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.
Monday, 29 June 2015
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.
“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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)