Okay, I was into another bout of domain expansion this week, and so I got acquainted with a new 'past-time'...
So in came aisasoft- and Audition.
Okay, don't scream don't scream. I am not psychedelic, I am not a big bad wolf trying to cheat the hearts of little girls and NO WAY am I turning efeminate. I was actually curious to find out what captivates the teenagers (the younger ones) of today- Apart from those steryotypical fast-paced first-person-shooters that would make any boy wet his pants; there is always the other end of the spectrum of games that would cater to the other face of humanity. Of course I had my share of those games earlier on (thats y I am still a dude thank you); so I guess this time it's more like going back and reviewing the other option in controlled circumstances.
Evidently its quite a simple game, but simple not that it was easy. The interface was towards a cute-lighthearted theme, and the gameplay revolves on a couple of arrow keys and the spacebar. Basically, the moral of the story was to complete your set of keys (that is shown to you) and tap the spacebar before the meter runs out: perfection if the tap was exactly in line to the background beat, miss when miss butterfingers come in and mess up the whole show (no puns intended). An NRIC was needed to sign up for an account- okay, says Jesse: options- 21 yrs, male.....
and then: ← ↑ ↓ → ↑ ↓ → "space"
Well, it felt like playing piano. That was the only thing I felt throughout, although I was partially taken by the new-age music (recall: I collect grandfather songs); the people online were little kids- I could nearly smell that out judging by the way they speak, and they actually think that I am some 13 yr old girl who registered with her brother's account. Honesty evidently dosent pay online, and those kids just won't get the idea that I am here on administrative purposes to see the other side of life. Well, on the flipside, those that did were a little more brazen- there was this one that actually wanted a date.
"Honey, u dun wanna know who I am- yup, enjoy; but rmb to also study hard k? Dun be sad, there are lots of ppl out there who like you....juz tt u dun know it yet..." she thought I was psycho I guess, hopefully that message sinks in 5 years later....
and right..... all the desperate guys- how can I not know better???
So there it was- and D.I.A.M. broke down two days later, so there went the game. Well, whats the moral of the story then?
Alot- but for now: Dunno. Dun care. Next.
30 January 2010
24 January 2010
Finally
Rachael-Natalie S.T.
Conceptual Embodiment, Project RNST
Specimen of creation out of a metaphysical union of psyches.
I have only one thing to state after shading this picture. This may as well be my final shading for a long time.
I don't deny that this is one of the most all-rounded pictures drawn insofar. Not fully perfect, but substantially well-done. It was from a subtle integration of two sets of shading styles that had seen this picture to materialize- on one hand there is enough depth at the shadowed areas, on the other hand it wasn't exactly pitch black and smudgy like the previous ones. (Note that the lighting is much softer than the previous attempts, coming slightly from (our) left.)
Now, one of the few questions I have got recently is "who is she?". Although the ownership of this picture is not completely mine. I have given a formal name to this character- partially out of the acronym it bears to the project (she is that 19-year Girlfriend from Ang Mo Kio as we speak in 2009) that she is created from, and partially out of my desire to create a test character entity that is free of plots and personal desires. The name is arbitrary, although the two christian names implicitly reminds us of her origins based on two still-irreconcilable existing personalities that reside within me.
Yes, I guess I am pretty happy with the drawings insofar. The progression of style and detail had improved remarkably over the past 10 pictures. While there may still be a road to go on for those still striving to perfection, I guess I can finally say that I am contented with where I am- my ability to be in a sort of metaphysical union, and let real work manifest from within. I don't mean to drop shading entirely, on the contrary, I believe the next shading I'll do would be one based completely on my own drawings.
Or from one that I may be in perfect union with.
Otherwise, do enjoy this picture an any way you wish: be it the deranged way, or just taking it from an artistic point of view (I know there is still errors- but in real life nth is perfect). Have fun.
22 January 2010
Something I found out in the bath
well, this post is not going to be as psychotic as the last one i think- it isn't much noteworthy either- but it makes good food for thought to people either deeply in though or deeply in love. (me being neither on either side though =/)
Evidently, there is no difference in the absolute phrases uttered in a song dedicated to a love one, or a song dedicated to the objective (doctrinistic) ontology of living. Perhaps there may be a slight difference in context when the romantic details ie. 'hair so smooth' or 'your touch' starts creeping into the song; and the difference starts getting more obvious when sex and breakup starts coming in. But if we try to see the meaning behind this cluster of words in a decent love song (especially those with a specific 'you' attached to it).
Okay, this is much freaky- but here are some of the many possible tie ins between the 'you' in a love song; and the metaphysical 'you' (strictly speaking, an embodiment of concepts in the theory of life- but you know what i mean) philosophers are seeking for in life.
#01- somehow, for one reason or the other, 'you' are always 'my' strength
#02- there is always the allusion to 'our' dreams and ideals
#03- 'you' always are the one that 'I' seek, and 'I' was never complete until i found 'you'
#04- people always will say that 'I' am crazy when I actually am in union with 'you'
#05- the realization of you was (in fact) my efforts, yet somehow it has always been my destiny
#06- 'you' are always eternally there within me since the day of meet. (Near, far wherever you are, I believe..)
#07- Somehow, 'I' will always want to know (be with) 'you' more and more
#08- Without 'you' life is meaningless and impossible
#09- 'You" are always true, good (to me) and beautiful.
#10- Together 'we' can make what seems impossible possible.
There are at least fifty more allusions we can make. I guess I'm just too lazy to type on, but the next time when a love song comes a playing, listen carefully to the lyrics instead of screaming 'cheesy'- there is most probably at least 3 allusions within that you could compare to that embodiment of concepts in the theory of life.
Alternatively, the you could always refer to a higher being i.e. God. In fact, this conversion is directly linear. We know after all that eros (romantic love) is a subsection off perfect consummate love (agape).
Now, for 2 very simple, yet amazing conclusions:
1) The 'you' of God and all the concepts in the theory of life are actually the same. In the theories of life, embodied, we are actually linking back all this philosophy to God.
2) Somehow, knowing, understanding, reconciling and loving are one thing in essence. It is universal, whether its towards concepts, a nice girl (awww...), or God (himself).
So much for taking a shower to rest the mind and body huh??
ps: by the way this IS NOT some sort of romantic love declaration kept under codes....
15 January 2010
Log of Project RN (T3) - an excerpt
Re: Project RN (T3)
14th January 2010
Workbench Log #07- On Creation and Beauty
Introduction to article:
Two months ago I had started research on the third project RN (T3). At that point of time, project RN (T2) was undergoing construction and was postulated to be completed by April 2010. Project RN (T3) basically attempts to address fundamental principles on beauty and creation. I will not be speaking about the theories introspected here. Today, I'll focus on an issue realized during the research process.
Background reason of research:
I had started my research from natural creation. It had been intuitive to start from consultation of religious leaders, books and the theology regarding sexual reproduction. Subsequently, I had moved on to introspecting art, literature and music pieces to understand the meaning of harmony and characterization. It was on recent times I had focused my attention unto simulations and AI robots- partially out of the movies 'Matrix' and 'Ghost In The Shell'. It had seemed upon hindsight that AI and robots are one of the finer creations of humanity. I was determined to see what had made humans to compelled to keep developing into AI and robotics- why do we keep improving, and what do we hope to achieve.
Summary of report; thesis of article:
As of today, I have only one word to report back here- Disturbing.
The changing meaning of human creation:
How is it disturbing? Humans have initially created robots and programs for utilitarian purposes. Our creations had existed fundamentally to bring ease into our lives by alleviating the physical and intellectual burdens that we had to previously undertake manually. With the advent of such machines, we were then able to solve complex problems in math and lift exceedingly heavy loads in a construction site. But today, as we no longer have to race for a better washing machine or a microwave oven or a power-shovel, our attention towards our creations had turned into another domain.
Human creation, with respect to our hierarchy of needs:
I had discussed before (in 2008) that as humans progress in their capabilities for creation and development. There is an inherent phenomenon that they will always strive to create an exact image (not copy) of themselves ultimately. This can be aptly reflected in psychologist Marsolw's Hierarchy of Needs. A man may be contented with a fish as food if he had none previously, but if he has adequate food and a horse comes by to provide utilitarian aid, he would willingly set his sights upon it. Now with a horse and fish at his disposal, he would then see a higher need for aesthetics- for love and companionship, and ultimately for the meaning of living. Currently, we have little need for horses or fishes. We already have created a sea of machinery and computers helping us out in our various specific needs. On top of their specific contributions, we have also inter-aggregated (integrated) their augmentations via linking them seamless into a network of logic modelled after our social network called the internet.
Our phenomenal strive to re-create humanity by arbitrary means:
Through research obtained in the past three weeks, it is evident fact that man had been modelling their image unto the concept of 'dolls' and their intellect unto the concept of artificial intelligence. Even as we speak, man himself is attempting to merge these two domains together in the integrated form of humanoid robotics and interactive A.I.. From what started as the utilitarian purpose of bring aid to the elderly and domestic care to children, humanoid robotics developed by both Japan and America today are beginning to move towards another domain- of providing companionship and love towards us humans. Our ongoing strives to blend A.I. interaction and developing of robotic machinery towards more 'humane' resemblances have led to the first prototypes of androids that react similarly to a rudimentary human (comparable to 5 years of age). Although these prototypes are still generally lacking in terms of intellectual development, and may never gain access to a collective conscience to provide a threat to existence (as postulated in the series Terminator). However, what proves as disturbing, and the purpose of this excerpt, actually lies in the way we view our creations as it becomes increasingly life-like.
Roxxxy as an example of emotional feedback, and our feedbacks on her:
The recent unveiling of Roxxxy (published 12th January 2010) as a robot created fundamentally for sex and companionship purposes (a sexaroid)- with the intent to be as 'humane and interactive as possible so that it may provide a substantial substitution for a real human girlfriend' has definitely blurred the lines of physical and intellectual utility. From our previous die-cast definitions of doing work and solving equations, the concept of physical and intellectual augmentations have now expanded to include work in sexual activities and emotional conditioning. As with my previous article, it had been comments of netizens, proceeding the unveiling itself, that brings about the true case of disturbance. The general view of Roxxxy was mainly focused on the state of it's physical attractiveness. A general message was noted that humans actually do not bother who they are actually having sex with just as long as 'the experience is realistic enough' and (the gynoid) provides successful emotional empathy.
Project Aiko- a demonstration that humans will not stop till they have created themselves essentially, and also a thought experiment of creation out of emotional reasons.
Project Aiko (beloved one) was also of noteworthy importance. The obsession to recreate and develop an andriod (gynoid) as far as possible (without planned restrictions) confirms the earlier postulation that humans will not stop until they have essentially created themselves (on a metaphysical level) by their own will and means. Interestingly, this project stands in contrast to similar projects undertaken by Honda to recreate androids. While androids were created by Honda merely as a pure display of human achievements in technology (even so it is interesting why had they replaced a prosthetic human face on the latest model), an additional means of emotional connection had existed between the creator and the entity itself, analogous to a parent and a child, throughout the development process. To this, the question the notion of creation with partial concepts of ontological union involved. Although such union can hardly be compared to true transcendental love, however it's truth that it still does create a certain notion of meaning. What would be said of the purpose of robots if humans actually devoted emotional care in creating them? This area of introspection still stands in murky waters for now.
Our three-step response to our creations
What comes most shockingly, as with the case of Roxxxy, is actually the human response to these creations. From the various forums, and commentary sections of Youtube and Dailymotion in particular, evidently, humans have generally demonstrated three stages of response while interacting with robots close to primal responses to intelligent objects. Indeed, they are initially skeptical about robots while they still differ greatly with the 'true' human form- they poke curiously, and laugh constantly at the awkward responses elicited (the psychology of laughter can be debated). However, when they are exposed to a more realistic android, their expressions then transit from skepticism to a certain type of shock and repulsion- perhaps it is the slight realization that their creations are coming a little too close to humanity for comfort. But it is noted on all accounts that with they should ignore their second reflection of repulsion, with prolonged interaction, humans actually will eventually begin to converse 'humanely' with the A.I.. However, they would ultimately remind themselves periodically that it is still after all not human or dead.
Skepticism is no more than a higher cognitive process of faith, reason and persuasion:
While adults generally do demonstrate the three stages of responsiveness, children on the other hand were observed to have a smoother transition between stage 1 to stage 3, with some very young children bypassing stage 2 altogether. Therefore it has been implied that such skepticism is actually derived from higher cognitive processes (of faith and reason) that robots are not human. From here we can postulate that if this higher cognitive process of reason is suppressed- either with emotional charges (same mechanism as drugs and stimulants) derived from prolonged emotional connection with our creations, or logically overwritten with the new assumption that 'there is in essence no difference between them and us', then humans may actually lose their distinction altogether. (we can discuss the interplay of reason between humanity and such notions to predict the final impression humans would actually make)
The frontiers on how humans have actually been affected by their creations:
There have already been countless reports by the Japanese media of husbands actually neglecting their wives for company with virtual reality characters, added onto the handful of people who actually committed suicide after their virtual reality programs crash- implying the death of their cyber-characters. These articles have confirmed the validity that our creations may actually feedback purpose to humanity. They also have demonstrated the potential that humans may be lost with their true identity as humans.While we be-label such indviduals as weak or stupid, and maintain true humans will not succumb so easily to such postulations, it is objective nevertheless, that as we grapple with the lack of humanity in the workplace and at home, we are actually lowering our current state of meaning (as opposed to our full potential of humanity) to become sub-humans ourselves. Indeed, robots may never have that infinite potential or state of being to become real humans, but the danger actually lies in the inverse. It is more likely for humans to start losing their humanity- their faith and their capacities to enact love that lowers their objective state of value and esteem (which is the subjective perception of one's worth) to no more as machines themselves.
Case study: marriage between man and an A.I. character from the game “love-Plus”
This can aptly be reflected in December 2009, when the media reported the first marriage between a man and an A.I. character from Japanese Nintendo game 'Love-Plus". Love-Plus was released onto the Nintendo DS platform on September 2009, and serves as a virtual reality relationship simulator game- analogous to earlier versions of Tamaguchi, except that the previous pixelated animal has been replaced by a 3-D rendered image of an anime drawing of a human female (bishoujo). This article may be slightly hilarious for the time being, since personal research into the game play methods has concluded that the actual simulation can only be realized with a great amount of personal conviction (delusion). However, it is more than possible that with more advanced A.I., and realistic simulations, the now-apparent distinction between a joke, and a plausibility be actually blurred in the near future. Should the previous argument hold truth, then there eventually will be more than a single case of 'marriage'. And should our current attitude still stand, all of the above will definitely become more than another whim upon the deranged world.
Reminder to the skeptical:
On a side note- humans are indeed very easily deluded. This has been proven historically.
Various Questions to the above implications:
What then would be the meaning of human creation? how far would we then have deviated from natural creation (or God's plan?). Will we not create another entity of sentience, even if we fail at creating souls and life just as how we were created? How far would we be allowed to go then before we may start violating the natural laws of creation? If it is the intent that we are judging this upon, what will be said if there is an objective intent for the green light to human creation? I have recorded down previously that it is innate even within myself to desire for the perfect human creation in form of a character. I had stated the limitations and the taboo areas, but if we were to look back at the fundamental question- why do I myself even want to make that perfect creation??
Personal conclusion
I won't expect answers to these questions anytime soon. I personally be curious to see the day humans emerge with their perfect creation, although it may as well mark the day of the apocalypse when humans play God themselves. While I end these words today, even from within- that desire to create that perfect creation resonates within. This same dream shared by people around me: possibility to just a dream- possibly to a science fiction book, and possibly to a manufacturing plant....
14th January 2010
Workbench Log #07- On Creation and Beauty
Introduction to article:
Two months ago I had started research on the third project RN (T3). At that point of time, project RN (T2) was undergoing construction and was postulated to be completed by April 2010. Project RN (T3) basically attempts to address fundamental principles on beauty and creation. I will not be speaking about the theories introspected here. Today, I'll focus on an issue realized during the research process.
Background reason of research:
I had started my research from natural creation. It had been intuitive to start from consultation of religious leaders, books and the theology regarding sexual reproduction. Subsequently, I had moved on to introspecting art, literature and music pieces to understand the meaning of harmony and characterization. It was on recent times I had focused my attention unto simulations and AI robots- partially out of the movies 'Matrix' and 'Ghost In The Shell'. It had seemed upon hindsight that AI and robots are one of the finer creations of humanity. I was determined to see what had made humans to compelled to keep developing into AI and robotics- why do we keep improving, and what do we hope to achieve.
Summary of report; thesis of article:
As of today, I have only one word to report back here- Disturbing.
The changing meaning of human creation:
How is it disturbing? Humans have initially created robots and programs for utilitarian purposes. Our creations had existed fundamentally to bring ease into our lives by alleviating the physical and intellectual burdens that we had to previously undertake manually. With the advent of such machines, we were then able to solve complex problems in math and lift exceedingly heavy loads in a construction site. But today, as we no longer have to race for a better washing machine or a microwave oven or a power-shovel, our attention towards our creations had turned into another domain.
Human creation, with respect to our hierarchy of needs:
I had discussed before (in 2008) that as humans progress in their capabilities for creation and development. There is an inherent phenomenon that they will always strive to create an exact image (not copy) of themselves ultimately. This can be aptly reflected in psychologist Marsolw's Hierarchy of Needs. A man may be contented with a fish as food if he had none previously, but if he has adequate food and a horse comes by to provide utilitarian aid, he would willingly set his sights upon it. Now with a horse and fish at his disposal, he would then see a higher need for aesthetics- for love and companionship, and ultimately for the meaning of living. Currently, we have little need for horses or fishes. We already have created a sea of machinery and computers helping us out in our various specific needs. On top of their specific contributions, we have also inter-aggregated (integrated) their augmentations via linking them seamless into a network of logic modelled after our social network called the internet.
Our phenomenal strive to re-create humanity by arbitrary means:
Through research obtained in the past three weeks, it is evident fact that man had been modelling their image unto the concept of 'dolls' and their intellect unto the concept of artificial intelligence. Even as we speak, man himself is attempting to merge these two domains together in the integrated form of humanoid robotics and interactive A.I.. From what started as the utilitarian purpose of bring aid to the elderly and domestic care to children, humanoid robotics developed by both Japan and America today are beginning to move towards another domain- of providing companionship and love towards us humans. Our ongoing strives to blend A.I. interaction and developing of robotic machinery towards more 'humane' resemblances have led to the first prototypes of androids that react similarly to a rudimentary human (comparable to 5 years of age). Although these prototypes are still generally lacking in terms of intellectual development, and may never gain access to a collective conscience to provide a threat to existence (as postulated in the series Terminator). However, what proves as disturbing, and the purpose of this excerpt, actually lies in the way we view our creations as it becomes increasingly life-like.
Roxxxy as an example of emotional feedback, and our feedbacks on her:
The recent unveiling of Roxxxy (published 12th January 2010) as a robot created fundamentally for sex and companionship purposes (a sexaroid)- with the intent to be as 'humane and interactive as possible so that it may provide a substantial substitution for a real human girlfriend' has definitely blurred the lines of physical and intellectual utility. From our previous die-cast definitions of doing work and solving equations, the concept of physical and intellectual augmentations have now expanded to include work in sexual activities and emotional conditioning. As with my previous article, it had been comments of netizens, proceeding the unveiling itself, that brings about the true case of disturbance. The general view of Roxxxy was mainly focused on the state of it's physical attractiveness. A general message was noted that humans actually do not bother who they are actually having sex with just as long as 'the experience is realistic enough' and (the gynoid) provides successful emotional empathy.
Project Aiko- a demonstration that humans will not stop till they have created themselves essentially, and also a thought experiment of creation out of emotional reasons.
Project Aiko (beloved one) was also of noteworthy importance. The obsession to recreate and develop an andriod (gynoid) as far as possible (without planned restrictions) confirms the earlier postulation that humans will not stop until they have essentially created themselves (on a metaphysical level) by their own will and means. Interestingly, this project stands in contrast to similar projects undertaken by Honda to recreate androids. While androids were created by Honda merely as a pure display of human achievements in technology (even so it is interesting why had they replaced a prosthetic human face on the latest model), an additional means of emotional connection had existed between the creator and the entity itself, analogous to a parent and a child, throughout the development process. To this, the question the notion of creation with partial concepts of ontological union involved. Although such union can hardly be compared to true transcendental love, however it's truth that it still does create a certain notion of meaning. What would be said of the purpose of robots if humans actually devoted emotional care in creating them? This area of introspection still stands in murky waters for now.
Our three-step response to our creations
What comes most shockingly, as with the case of Roxxxy, is actually the human response to these creations. From the various forums, and commentary sections of Youtube and Dailymotion in particular, evidently, humans have generally demonstrated three stages of response while interacting with robots close to primal responses to intelligent objects. Indeed, they are initially skeptical about robots while they still differ greatly with the 'true' human form- they poke curiously, and laugh constantly at the awkward responses elicited (the psychology of laughter can be debated). However, when they are exposed to a more realistic android, their expressions then transit from skepticism to a certain type of shock and repulsion- perhaps it is the slight realization that their creations are coming a little too close to humanity for comfort. But it is noted on all accounts that with they should ignore their second reflection of repulsion, with prolonged interaction, humans actually will eventually begin to converse 'humanely' with the A.I.. However, they would ultimately remind themselves periodically that it is still after all not human or dead.
Skepticism is no more than a higher cognitive process of faith, reason and persuasion:
While adults generally do demonstrate the three stages of responsiveness, children on the other hand were observed to have a smoother transition between stage 1 to stage 3, with some very young children bypassing stage 2 altogether. Therefore it has been implied that such skepticism is actually derived from higher cognitive processes (of faith and reason) that robots are not human. From here we can postulate that if this higher cognitive process of reason is suppressed- either with emotional charges (same mechanism as drugs and stimulants) derived from prolonged emotional connection with our creations, or logically overwritten with the new assumption that 'there is in essence no difference between them and us', then humans may actually lose their distinction altogether. (we can discuss the interplay of reason between humanity and such notions to predict the final impression humans would actually make)
The frontiers on how humans have actually been affected by their creations:
There have already been countless reports by the Japanese media of husbands actually neglecting their wives for company with virtual reality characters, added onto the handful of people who actually committed suicide after their virtual reality programs crash- implying the death of their cyber-characters. These articles have confirmed the validity that our creations may actually feedback purpose to humanity. They also have demonstrated the potential that humans may be lost with their true identity as humans.While we be-label such indviduals as weak or stupid, and maintain true humans will not succumb so easily to such postulations, it is objective nevertheless, that as we grapple with the lack of humanity in the workplace and at home, we are actually lowering our current state of meaning (as opposed to our full potential of humanity) to become sub-humans ourselves. Indeed, robots may never have that infinite potential or state of being to become real humans, but the danger actually lies in the inverse. It is more likely for humans to start losing their humanity- their faith and their capacities to enact love that lowers their objective state of value and esteem (which is the subjective perception of one's worth) to no more as machines themselves.
The deficiency yet desire of love in humans may lead humans to turn to other forms of emotional connection.
While robotics and A.I. are geared toward the intellectual compatibility of humans and the logically perfect emotional connection to substitute the companionship of a logically imperfect emotional connection of a human being, the relationship between man and brother declines rapidly even as we speak. With our current deficiencies in love, there may be a day where the need for love (the ultimate need of humans) may overwrite all regard towards the (then subtle) differences between the human and the humanoid. I do not hypothesize the stereotypical view of a man disregarding his wife for his household gynoid in the year 2142- that notion would be implausible and irrelevant to our current area of concern. But rather more like a simple MSN conversation between a 14 year old and an A.I. bot on an online avatar. it is very plausible that the 14 year old decides to hold such prolonged conversations simply because it does not bully her like the boys in class do, and understands her better her parents. for the record, we already do have a presence of rudimentary MSN bots and interactive A.I.s with an unique avatar, so such an envisionment would not be a far-fetched postulation in the near future.
Case study: marriage between man and an A.I. character from the game “love-Plus”
This can aptly be reflected in December 2009, when the media reported the first marriage between a man and an A.I. character from Japanese Nintendo game 'Love-Plus". Love-Plus was released onto the Nintendo DS platform on September 2009, and serves as a virtual reality relationship simulator game- analogous to earlier versions of Tamaguchi, except that the previous pixelated animal has been replaced by a 3-D rendered image of an anime drawing of a human female (bishoujo). This article may be slightly hilarious for the time being, since personal research into the game play methods has concluded that the actual simulation can only be realized with a great amount of personal conviction (delusion). However, it is more than possible that with more advanced A.I., and realistic simulations, the now-apparent distinction between a joke, and a plausibility be actually blurred in the near future. Should the previous argument hold truth, then there eventually will be more than a single case of 'marriage'. And should our current attitude still stand, all of the above will definitely become more than another whim upon the deranged world.
Reminder to the skeptical:
On a side note- humans are indeed very easily deluded. This has been proven historically.
Various Questions to the above implications:
What then would be the meaning of human creation? how far would we then have deviated from natural creation (or God's plan?). Will we not create another entity of sentience, even if we fail at creating souls and life just as how we were created? How far would we be allowed to go then before we may start violating the natural laws of creation? If it is the intent that we are judging this upon, what will be said if there is an objective intent for the green light to human creation? I have recorded down previously that it is innate even within myself to desire for the perfect human creation in form of a character. I had stated the limitations and the taboo areas, but if we were to look back at the fundamental question- why do I myself even want to make that perfect creation??
Personal conclusion
I won't expect answers to these questions anytime soon. I personally be curious to see the day humans emerge with their perfect creation, although it may as well mark the day of the apocalypse when humans play God themselves. While I end these words today, even from within- that desire to create that perfect creation resonates within. This same dream shared by people around me: possibility to just a dream- possibly to a science fiction book, and possibly to a manufacturing plant....
14 January 2010
What does it mean to say, integrating my past and present, I'll forge my future
Evidently, the date speaks for itself.
Anniversar-aily, today marks the beginning of the 5th Age of the Dejengskian Calendar- otherwise a nonsensical calendar with little relevance to the outer world. (But this IS my domain, so I write whatever I wish here. Booya.)
So while personal identity awareness (the awareness that you are in what way different from your peers beside you) had probably arisen earlier back in 2001 or possibly earlier; social awareness- or the awareness that the people you meet defines you and who you are predicts who you are probably going to meet... officially starts 5 years ago. Of course I had not crossed that day anticipating this kind of change to beset upon me- it was more like a random chance, that now correlates to Erikson's 6th psychosocial crisis.
Interesting- I remember saying this phrase before in the 5th Age while under that psychosocial crisis: "Integrating my past and present, I'll forge my future". It was a phrase uttered as a desperate attempt to change my attitude then, but perhaps it was quite a truthful statement after all...
Right... I will not be going into details, nor halcyon today- the road till today wasn't exactly what we call smooth sailing, and okay- frankly speaking it sounds slightly stupid either way. But I don't believe that we should try to abhor past experiences just because they sound a tad too painful or perhaps it's too embarrassing. Being pragmatic and looking into the future is a good thing. But pragmatism isn't the only way to live a life; moreover, life is not about just tomorrow.
Come on. There is always feelings- there is always metaphysical-ontology (for those who seek intellectual thrills and definition games) and there is always the notion to BE yourself. On the same side of the coin, the quality of our lives are not depended qualitatively by how much we can be tomorrow (for the thrill seeker: the concept of Goodness is not the subset of the concept of Potential, it is the reverse that holds); rather what we can call a meaningful life is a a person who has come to terms of acceptance with this past, who constantly seeks to live the present with the best of his ability, and be pragmatic with his future at the same time.
Also, it won't be cool if we start rushing off hoping that tomorrow would promise better without at least finding out what went wrong yesterday, or without a current objective in mind today.... okay okay, so all the long words, what is the moral of the story then?
Accept our failures, turn them into lessons of life and love, then strive to improve to be a better person altogether- that is the moral of the story- isn't it?
So that we can see the meaning of anniversaries- we can see the meaning of living, of lessons, and learning. We can then experience the best of humanity- okay, this sounds slightly freaky... but who cares- this is my domain, remember?
So allow me to indulge another day of meaning. Smile anyway, new year's around the corner- its evidently Ba Kwa time for me eh? =D
Anniversar-aily, today marks the beginning of the 5th Age of the Dejengskian Calendar- otherwise a nonsensical calendar with little relevance to the outer world. (But this IS my domain, so I write whatever I wish here. Booya.)
So while personal identity awareness (the awareness that you are in what way different from your peers beside you) had probably arisen earlier back in 2001 or possibly earlier; social awareness- or the awareness that the people you meet defines you and who you are predicts who you are probably going to meet... officially starts 5 years ago. Of course I had not crossed that day anticipating this kind of change to beset upon me- it was more like a random chance, that now correlates to Erikson's 6th psychosocial crisis.
Interesting- I remember saying this phrase before in the 5th Age while under that psychosocial crisis: "Integrating my past and present, I'll forge my future". It was a phrase uttered as a desperate attempt to change my attitude then, but perhaps it was quite a truthful statement after all...
Right... I will not be going into details, nor halcyon today- the road till today wasn't exactly what we call smooth sailing, and okay- frankly speaking it sounds slightly stupid either way. But I don't believe that we should try to abhor past experiences just because they sound a tad too painful or perhaps it's too embarrassing. Being pragmatic and looking into the future is a good thing. But pragmatism isn't the only way to live a life; moreover, life is not about just tomorrow.
Come on. There is always feelings- there is always metaphysical-ontology (for those who seek intellectual thrills and definition games) and there is always the notion to BE yourself. On the same side of the coin, the quality of our lives are not depended qualitatively by how much we can be tomorrow (for the thrill seeker: the concept of Goodness is not the subset of the concept of Potential, it is the reverse that holds); rather what we can call a meaningful life is a a person who has come to terms of acceptance with this past, who constantly seeks to live the present with the best of his ability, and be pragmatic with his future at the same time.
Also, it won't be cool if we start rushing off hoping that tomorrow would promise better without at least finding out what went wrong yesterday, or without a current objective in mind today.... okay okay, so all the long words, what is the moral of the story then?
Accept our failures, turn them into lessons of life and love, then strive to improve to be a better person altogether- that is the moral of the story- isn't it?
So that we can see the meaning of anniversaries- we can see the meaning of living, of lessons, and learning. We can then experience the best of humanity- okay, this sounds slightly freaky... but who cares- this is my domain, remember?
So allow me to indulge another day of meaning. Smile anyway, new year's around the corner- its evidently Ba Kwa time for me eh? =D
06 January 2010
Remind me the paradoxities of life.
Remind me how much I love the simple pleasures of living. Paradoxically its actually a child's cartoon that tells me this.
Remind me how had I passed my 21st birthday away from congeniality; paradoxically it was the beauty of silence that captivated me.
Remind me the delight of re-discovering things- and to not be complacent with our current disposition. Paradoxically it's actually the trill of a train ride that re-affirmed me.
Remind me the reason why I had started all the philosophy only to alienate myself- Paradoxically it was actually the feeling of loneliness that brought about this quest.
Remind me the transition to 2010, paradoxically it was the innocence of another nights out that brought me to realize that nothing much has changed apart from ourselves.
Remind me that I am still Jesse. Paradoxically, it is from only from others that I can truly know myself.
Remind me once more. Paradoxically.
Remind me how had I passed my 21st birthday away from congeniality; paradoxically it was the beauty of silence that captivated me.
Remind me the delight of re-discovering things- and to not be complacent with our current disposition. Paradoxically it's actually the trill of a train ride that re-affirmed me.
Remind me the reason why I had started all the philosophy only to alienate myself- Paradoxically it was actually the feeling of loneliness that brought about this quest.
Remind me the transition to 2010, paradoxically it was the innocence of another nights out that brought me to realize that nothing much has changed apart from ourselves.
Remind me that I am still Jesse. Paradoxically, it is from only from others that I can truly know myself.
Remind me once more. Paradoxically.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)