Indeed, it's been long since I have voiced my personal mind in this domain. I do not intend to commercialize this domain, and neither do I want to reserve it to an incomprehensible jumble of emotions. As much as I wish to throw in the developments of my projects and agendas, there is always still room for personal updates and affirmations.
So whats cooking- frankly speaking, there is quite a little bit going on. I do not have an accurate breakdown of eras, periods, and moments for now; but on this day- a day in this 7th Age of self enlightenment, I guess I have been in union with my ideals. They remain dormant for now, so there will be no explicit research in the RN domain for the time being.
But even as I would like to sit back and convince myself that nothing much as changed since March, it is nevertheless undeniable that much has happened along the way since the last upheaval. From May, drawing and CSS activities had formed two additional domains for expansion. Multiple portraits had been created since then, along with frequent interactions with CSS members. Other events that had taken place were the acquisition of critique skills, the reproduction of true Manga, a deeper introspection to the world of otaku-fetishism, and of course, the independent planning of a trip to Japan.
Maybe it's about time to start wondering if I am relegating back into a common otaku, after 20 months of exposure, two prior trips to Japan, a couple of hardcore acquaintances, and countless plunges to try to understand what is exactly so captivating about a series of illustrations that could be very easily replaced by any other drawing. I have tried following series, tried being enthusiastic, and of course sampled albums upon albums of their songs (some of which were quite good). The tast of Kobe beef still lies at the tip of my tongue, and the greatest legend: of the formation of project RN, was still relegated to that flight from Nagoya.
Maybe not, I may be closely affiliated with the Japanese culture, and in the future there will still be an intermittent crossing of paths between these two domains. However no matter how far I may plunge into this world of Manga and Animation, there will always be a higher restoring force, from the RN domain, to transit me back to my original state of mind. After-all, it is impossible to hold an extreme viewpoint by now. And strictly speaking an Otaku is in essence a hardcore-extremist.
So then, what have I been during these few months? A more subtle manifestation of the primary RN domain, creeping into all the other sub-domains. A simple yet determined attempt to harmonize my ideals (already in harmony with my religion) with others (hopefully the one) via the Uni/CSS domain. A deeper understanding of the forces of the Manga/Anime domain, so that I may integrate this with my narrative domain (formed back in 2000), as well as my domain in drawing, to compose beautiful productions in my spare time. In the meantime, a strengthening of independence in character, rationality and values; so that I may be a better person with greater care, concern and maturity.
This trip to Japan (my third) would be a very good training ground for the manifestation of these values- especially independence: notably, independence is never a selfish desire to work alone, but rather a capability to work in collaboration with others. Of course this would bring a greater integration with the Japanese culture and the Manga/Anime domain- this time we will not be visiting particular hotspots- a simple countryside trip, to understand the other part of the Japanese culture rarely hyped in media; so that my views may not be warped or one-dimensional. These remain secondary for now I guess, hopefully they will come due December 15, I am really looking forward to it.
What lies beyond school then in the meantime? A simple integration~ okay maybe not so technical.... I'll socialize (its about time to step out of my IM shell and head back to reality), hopefully forge meaningful relationships with people along the way, and at the same time re-affirm my ideals with that of my religion. I do not have specific agendas to seek a particular romance for the time being, nor do I have agendas on specific commitments which may require my undivided attention. I'll take whatever that comes by, in the trust of the higher divine plan.
Yes, there is a time for everything~ And much as I hope, let thy, not my will be done.
Yesterday, the understanding of the forces to the formation of an objective identity. Today- the beginning of a integration of domains into one united self. Tomorrow- union.
29 August 2010
23 August 2010
untitled manga, a critique
This article is a self-critique of a work of fiction completely created from personal imagination. Although utmost effort has been evoked to ensure objectivity, nevertheless certain forms of bias-ness is expected. Relevant co-authors, please comment on this post if possible to help make this critique as balanced as possible.
Article: untitled, episode 2, 1st scene.
Medium: Manga
Drawing style: Version 1.1 drawing style, Dual-chromatic shadings
Length: 4 panels, 1 page.
Plot: Arbitrary scene.
One of the most intuitive reactions when this composition is presented is a sense of achievement and awe. Yes, there are certain breakthroughs with this manga article- in terms of plot, drawing and characterizations. Some of these achievements include:
1) Harmonizing of standard manga eye styles and poses into personal drawings, accentuating on the cuteness factor.
2) Acquisition of complex posing techniques- i.e. back shots, top down, bottom up shots.
3) Sequential portrayal of pictures systematic enough to form a simple dialogue- rather than on-the-spot scenic poses.
However, much as I would wish to rest on my laurels and commend ourselves for such an achievement, I would also wish to state that such a composition is far from ideal standards. The reasons for such are as follows:
1) The panels are not planned properly before hand, and suit the drawing rather than the other way. This results in some miscalculations in scene depiction, and certain panels have to be shifted to accommodate drawings.
2) Also, panels are too sparely planned. Each page should consist of at least 4-7 panels on the average unless there is a need to depict 'epic shots' i.e. character shots or scenery.
3) The T1.1 character drawings are captivating, but there is little detail on objects such as clothing, furniture and background.
4) The drawing feels objectified. That is- there is not enough focus on the facial expressions of the character. This is probably because each shot is a mid-range shot of the character and at least half of her body.
5) The drawing is slipshod. Although this page was not planned for a manga depiction initially, lines for tables, windows, and their perspective were poorly planned. In panel 3 the tables are all listed to the left, and the windows nearly unrecognizable.
6) The shadings are non-standard and done in pencil. This gives a sense of monotony and lifelessness to the background scenes, since light-dynamics are greatly compromised.
Possible areas of improvement are as follows:
1) Introduction of more complex posing- in some scenes we want the eyes of the character to look at each other, and not around the reader's direction, other times we have to content with near-side shots or back shots with head looking front.
2) Proper planning of panels. Draw in the panels and their positions, with appropriate places and sizes for conversation. Also, panels must stand out and reflect undertones.
3) Up the level of detail on clothing and furniture. Although it is T1.1 the targeted level of detail should be at least T1.4. This includes shadowing and light dynamics.
4) Different combination of posing can be incorporated, for dialogue centric panels, close ups on the face only may be used, so that facial expressions may be more freely depicted. In other shots, a full body pose may suffice.
5) A precise note of perspective. Rulers and other instruments should be employed decisively, and concept lines need to be kept to a minimum from now on.
6) Shadings need to be more contrasting, and hatching could be considered as replacement to some of the soft shadings. Shadowing needs to be more precise and detailed, and illumination need to be portrayed with greater realism.
Currently, the standard of this article still does not meet the requirements of a standard manga, but serves as a good indicator and prototype to future panels. Till then, there is still much room for improvement. But nevertheless, it was still a good start. Congratulations =)
09 August 2010
Starcraft 2, a critique
This post is a critique of Blizzard's recently released RTS game: Starcraft 2, Wings of Liberty. Before I begin, I would wish to make it clear that this post is in no way an outright biasness towards or against the game. Neither do I wish to leave an impression of overt comparison towards the other RTS games I am currently playing: Company of Heroes, released by THQ; as well as C&C3, released by EA. I understand that these three games have distinctly different background plots and universes, which in turn affects the playing style of each game. Yet it is still imperative for a sort of comparison to be made- them being RTS giants themselves, there is definitely an objective area for improvement, and hence this critique.
In a nutshell, Starcraft 2 is a second installation of the critically acclaimed Starcraft series, and the bulk of it's plot takes placed after the Brood Wars, a playable expansion set of Starcraft 1 released in 1998. Originally developed for release in 2007, Blizzard has delayed productions for Starcraft 2 due to their commitments to expand WoW. Starcraft 2 was released on July 2010, and like it's predecessors, features an identical style of playing unique to the Starcraft universe.
One of the main strengths for Starcraft 2 is the intricate universe, as well as it's intriguing plot. Throughout the campaign, players are gradually introduced towards the background story, as well as the playable units of Starcraft 2. The transition towards these units are indeed meticulously planned to ensure that the learning curve does not become too steep, or the plot become jarring in transition from one mission to the next. An added feature of the game was the ability for the player to make defining choices within the game to alter his deposition. For example, in Jim Raynor's decision between purging or saving a refugee colony in Haven, the outcomes of the upgrades of the Terran technology tree varies considerably, on top of the plot outcome of the fate of the colonists and his diplomatic relations with the Protoss. Such a feature is welcomed, since it does bring a greater immersion and interaction to the universe, as well as integrating the game play with the background plot.
Yet Starcraft does fall short, like C&C3, in fleshing the more specific dynamics of it's gameplay. As like most RTS games, Starcraft utilizes a conventional resource-production structure. Two primary forms of resources, Minerals and Vespense gas, powers the economy of all three armies. In most base-building campaigns (including the multiplayer), these resources are located directly next to an existing base, and further resources
are placed strategically on the battlefield for subsequent expansion. While such a method of resource gathering does definitely encourage base expansion, it naturally entails a 'the greater the merrier' mindset to players. Moreover, as these resources are finite- it is desirable for a player to deplete his cache of resources early game into credits, and then subsequently plan on his strategy. In fact one of the common scenes in Starcraft 2 would be a player amassing a ridiculously large force of harvesters, and the observed outcome that the winner of a multi player is usually one with the biggest economy- since he has the liberty to choose the type of units to assault his enemy's base, and from therein forcing his enemy to play by his rules subsequently (since the Starcraft concept mirrors closely to the concept of chess, where one unit is especially effective to another unit, but vulnerable to another).
This concept of 'the greater the merrier' too extends considerably to the combat units in Starcraft 2. Indeed, the chess-esque method does balance to the choice of units in the Starcraft game, and we definitely will not be witnessing infantry spams or tank rushes (since a strategic choice of a squad of its counter units can decimate an entire battalion in no time) as witnessed in C&C3 game play, where players will basically spam tier 1 tanks and pit them in a head on battle while leaving the true strategy to time and resource management in clickfests.
However, what falls short in Starcraft 2 would be the process of the battle. Starcraft 2 still preserves the '1 shot 1 hit' methodology of warfare evident in many of the older RTS games. In other words, what determines the outcome of killing an enemy unit equivalent (ie a infantry-infantry or tank-tank battle) would be brute firepower and exposure time. This reduces the strategic components of battle back to the choice of units, since other considerations and tactics to outwit enemies during battle (i.e. ambushes, terrain position, veterancy) are reduced to hit-points and damage-points. An outcome of a single squad, micromanaged to perfection, outnumbering a platoon of mindless rushes in a NON unit-nemesis battle (i.e. vikings against zerglings) would be rare.
Of course it could be argued that such a style discourages spamming of a single type of infantry, and different units have to be used in conjunction during an assault. Yet, it does not make sense to be overtly focuses in the strategy of 'what unit's countering what unit'- the RTS genre focuses on the strategies used during the process of battle, and it would be disheartening to reduce the playing style of Starcraft 2 to a battle strategy on par with the strategy used in the american civil war- The infantry attack first, against infantry, and both suffer equal casualties. Then it would be the insertion of calvary by either team to wipe out the opposing infantry, and then a retreat by the losing team to the FUP, where the cannons will make short work of the calvery. This will be countered by the opposition calvary, on a flanking mission. Towards the end, the battle reduces to a confusion of units and is determined by firepower.
Moreover, such a playing style discourages the significance of veterancy of units in combat. It would be meaningless to retreat, just as long as new units may be produced in battle to reinforce the existing units in battle. It is notable in Starcraft 2 that while offensive powers vary in unit choice and nemesis-battles, the distinction of vehicles, or infantry is not very great. A single tank can be easily discriminated by a squad of marines as an opposing infantry would, since other considerations such as reaction time, and the accuracy are not taken into consideration. Moreover, it does not make sense for a mothership, or a planetary assault carrier to be downed so easily considering their actual size. Efforts to tier up a base completely for more 'powerful' infantry are compromised since it boils down to a choice of the 'cheapest' and 'most effective' unit. In simple words, size doesn't matter.
At this point in time I may have already been drawing flak by proponents. But I would wish to go one more step further to reinforce this point: the arguments of economy, unit choice, firing accuracy, size and overt emphasis of unit choice over other effective strategies; does not promote Starcraft 2 as a true proponent of strategic gameplay. While I do not take the other extreme to state that minue details such as bullet-drop, firing precision (as in the player deciding which part of the unit to hit to maximize damage points), I do advocate for a much more realistic game, not in terms of graphics or plot unfolding, but realism via the ability to utilize at least a greater variety of tactics used in real warfare. Guerrilla warfare, scorched earth, ambushes, and of course all out warefare, with due consideration to terrain (slope), troop veterancy and morale, on top of unit choice, would definitely bring about the much needed realism of RTS games, and of course, the importance of strategy, as the genre states.
Of course, I must restate my point again that this post is not a jibe to Starcraft 2. But naturally, in consideration to the above mentioned factors, Starcraft does not get my vote as a strategy game, but rather as an intriguing game that could do as well being spectacled (watched) rather than played.
In a nutshell, Starcraft 2 is a second installation of the critically acclaimed Starcraft series, and the bulk of it's plot takes placed after the Brood Wars, a playable expansion set of Starcraft 1 released in 1998. Originally developed for release in 2007, Blizzard has delayed productions for Starcraft 2 due to their commitments to expand WoW. Starcraft 2 was released on July 2010, and like it's predecessors, features an identical style of playing unique to the Starcraft universe.
One of the main strengths for Starcraft 2 is the intricate universe, as well as it's intriguing plot. Throughout the campaign, players are gradually introduced towards the background story, as well as the playable units of Starcraft 2. The transition towards these units are indeed meticulously planned to ensure that the learning curve does not become too steep, or the plot become jarring in transition from one mission to the next. An added feature of the game was the ability for the player to make defining choices within the game to alter his deposition. For example, in Jim Raynor's decision between purging or saving a refugee colony in Haven, the outcomes of the upgrades of the Terran technology tree varies considerably, on top of the plot outcome of the fate of the colonists and his diplomatic relations with the Protoss. Such a feature is welcomed, since it does bring a greater immersion and interaction to the universe, as well as integrating the game play with the background plot.
Yet Starcraft does fall short, like C&C3, in fleshing the more specific dynamics of it's gameplay. As like most RTS games, Starcraft utilizes a conventional resource-production structure. Two primary forms of resources, Minerals and Vespense gas, powers the economy of all three armies. In most base-building campaigns (including the multiplayer), these resources are located directly next to an existing base, and further resources
are placed strategically on the battlefield for subsequent expansion. While such a method of resource gathering does definitely encourage base expansion, it naturally entails a 'the greater the merrier' mindset to players. Moreover, as these resources are finite- it is desirable for a player to deplete his cache of resources early game into credits, and then subsequently plan on his strategy. In fact one of the common scenes in Starcraft 2 would be a player amassing a ridiculously large force of harvesters, and the observed outcome that the winner of a multi player is usually one with the biggest economy- since he has the liberty to choose the type of units to assault his enemy's base, and from therein forcing his enemy to play by his rules subsequently (since the Starcraft concept mirrors closely to the concept of chess, where one unit is especially effective to another unit, but vulnerable to another).
This concept of 'the greater the merrier' too extends considerably to the combat units in Starcraft 2. Indeed, the chess-esque method does balance to the choice of units in the Starcraft game, and we definitely will not be witnessing infantry spams or tank rushes (since a strategic choice of a squad of its counter units can decimate an entire battalion in no time) as witnessed in C&C3 game play, where players will basically spam tier 1 tanks and pit them in a head on battle while leaving the true strategy to time and resource management in clickfests.
However, what falls short in Starcraft 2 would be the process of the battle. Starcraft 2 still preserves the '1 shot 1 hit' methodology of warfare evident in many of the older RTS games. In other words, what determines the outcome of killing an enemy unit equivalent (ie a infantry-infantry or tank-tank battle) would be brute firepower and exposure time. This reduces the strategic components of battle back to the choice of units, since other considerations and tactics to outwit enemies during battle (i.e. ambushes, terrain position, veterancy) are reduced to hit-points and damage-points. An outcome of a single squad, micromanaged to perfection, outnumbering a platoon of mindless rushes in a NON unit-nemesis battle (i.e. vikings against zerglings) would be rare.
Of course it could be argued that such a style discourages spamming of a single type of infantry, and different units have to be used in conjunction during an assault. Yet, it does not make sense to be overtly focuses in the strategy of 'what unit's countering what unit'- the RTS genre focuses on the strategies used during the process of battle, and it would be disheartening to reduce the playing style of Starcraft 2 to a battle strategy on par with the strategy used in the american civil war- The infantry attack first, against infantry, and both suffer equal casualties. Then it would be the insertion of calvary by either team to wipe out the opposing infantry, and then a retreat by the losing team to the FUP, where the cannons will make short work of the calvery. This will be countered by the opposition calvary, on a flanking mission. Towards the end, the battle reduces to a confusion of units and is determined by firepower.
Moreover, such a playing style discourages the significance of veterancy of units in combat. It would be meaningless to retreat, just as long as new units may be produced in battle to reinforce the existing units in battle. It is notable in Starcraft 2 that while offensive powers vary in unit choice and nemesis-battles, the distinction of vehicles, or infantry is not very great. A single tank can be easily discriminated by a squad of marines as an opposing infantry would, since other considerations such as reaction time, and the accuracy are not taken into consideration. Moreover, it does not make sense for a mothership, or a planetary assault carrier to be downed so easily considering their actual size. Efforts to tier up a base completely for more 'powerful' infantry are compromised since it boils down to a choice of the 'cheapest' and 'most effective' unit. In simple words, size doesn't matter.
At this point in time I may have already been drawing flak by proponents. But I would wish to go one more step further to reinforce this point: the arguments of economy, unit choice, firing accuracy, size and overt emphasis of unit choice over other effective strategies; does not promote Starcraft 2 as a true proponent of strategic gameplay. While I do not take the other extreme to state that minue details such as bullet-drop, firing precision (as in the player deciding which part of the unit to hit to maximize damage points), I do advocate for a much more realistic game, not in terms of graphics or plot unfolding, but realism via the ability to utilize at least a greater variety of tactics used in real warfare. Guerrilla warfare, scorched earth, ambushes, and of course all out warefare, with due consideration to terrain (slope), troop veterancy and morale, on top of unit choice, would definitely bring about the much needed realism of RTS games, and of course, the importance of strategy, as the genre states.
Of course, I must restate my point again that this post is not a jibe to Starcraft 2. But naturally, in consideration to the above mentioned factors, Starcraft does not get my vote as a strategy game, but rather as an intriguing game that could do as well being spectacled (watched) rather than played.
08 August 2010
Inception- the deeper aspects
Introduction
Alright, the title speaks of my topic of the day- what I will say is really beyond the scope of the plot, so pardon me as I bring the nukes in.
One question that many people would ask about Inception is about the outcome of the spinning totem. Basically in the movie, Leonardo's totem would indicate objectively if he is within dream-scape, or is he back in reality. If it falls, its real, if it doesn't, he probably needs to wake up his idea.
Another question that was brought into the table is the 'fallacy' of his wife- that reality itself is no more than an idealized dream of a higher reality. One grave implication is that should she be right, then there technically can be an infinity of transcendental realities. In the movie it is implied that she is wrong, and there is an objective reality that the characters can return to.
Well, lets start by asking the same question as many would- would the totem fall?
First Postulate
On hindsight, yes. All implications points to the outcome that the totem should fall, since 1) it rounds up nicely the whole plot of 3 dreams. 2) it proves his wife is wrong (and we really hope his wife is). 3) Leonardo gets his happy ending, which is like awwww. Of course it would save me the entire problem of going into the transcendental problem, and I really dislike thinking too much over something that someone's ideas (movie) when I could really be doing more constructive things like cleaning my room or going to the zoo.
Whats wrong with the first postulate?
But the happy way out falls short of reason should more thought be brought into the movie. Not in terms of pure critique, but also in imagery and depiction. Fundamentally, the movie would be portraying dreams and reality rather inaccurately. The major reason? There is too much a hint of transcendental idealism, than transcendental realism within the movie itself. This leads to my belief that the 'dreams' the characters have, are not true mental (idealized) perceptions, but rather objectively (realized) shared perceptions of a diminished (but evident) reality.
HUH? Okay, so we have to go deeper into the rabbit hole. By doing this, we will have to bring into question the concepts of transcendental idealism and transcendental realism.
A bit on the 2 nukes: Transcendental Idealism and Realism
What is transcendental idealism, or transcendental realism?
Loosely speaking, transcendental idealism is a Kantian postulate that humans may only appreciate, and experience reality as how they appear (or are idealized by the person) to be. Strictly speaking, space and time (reality) is no more than relationships between idealized proponents, since the mind does not perceive distance in and of themselves, but rather relates it in relation to what it deems as distance and duration. Simply speaking to the individual, whatever bullshit there may be, it is all a dream, and the dream is the end of all things.
On the other hand, transcendental realism is a philosophical idea that there is an objective reality the dreamers (or every human) know consciously, which transcends the Kantian transcendental idealism. What it really is is just adding on a counterargument on top of Kant's icing- yes, transcendental idealism holds, but humans are able to understand, and transcendental that idealism to appreciate that there is a reality out there that is really independent of what we may fancifully dream it to be.
A note on realism, idealism, TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM and TRANSCENDENTAL REALISM
So one important thing we have to clear before we proceed on- realism does not equate to transcendental realism, and idealism does not equate to transcendental idealism. Realism and idealism can be used in conjunction, since there is no possible way to know, or verify if a plane of existence is real or ideal.
Yet, the concept of transcendental realism means that realism is the terminal (or highest) form of this plane of existence. The concept of transcendental idealism means that idealism is the terminal form; however, we must understand that it does not make sense to believe in a mind floating in non-existence. So if we were to advocate transcendental idealism in its pure form, we're going to have an infinite plane of existences, or 'realities' so as to speak.
To keep things clear, we will use the following words in this style.
1) reality, 2) idealizations, 3) TRANSCENDENTAL REALISM and 4) TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM.
So what is the implications of Inception to these 2 nukes?
Okay coming back from la-la-land, so how does these two grandfather's story have in relation to a simple movie of Inception? Putting these concepts back, if it is indeed true that the totem doesn't fall, objective reality cannot hold- since his wife postulate that reality itself is but another idealized dream would bear truth. Since objectivity cannot hold, then we will have an infinite loop of idealizations. The concept of TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM, or that all apparent reality is no more than part of a mental construe of a higher idealization (or dream) would thus be the defining theme of the movie.
If the totem fell, the concepts of TRANSCENDENTAL REALISM would hold. So in other words, there is a base level of reality (instead of an infinite cycle of dreams), there is objectivity, and there is a terminal reality for us to return to. Life then, wouldn't be so complex.
in conclusion:
A) TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM = totem don't fall
So what is the big problem?
1) There is a some hints that its just a movie about dreams (idealizations)
The big problem only arises when we start confusing one transcendent for another. In a setting of inception, where the idea of a team of people invading a single person's dreams, the natural concept of idealism has to hold. Since its one person's (idealized) dream that is the reality of things, and the dream-scape of the person would really be the world for everybody to do their work within. This was mentioned in good detail, that the people in the dream-scape are merely projections of his mind, and how the team has to remain low to avoid detection by the 'god' of this transcendentally diminished world (aka the dreamer). Another obvious clue is when the dreamer has the power to warp the world as he wishes and bend all logical boundaries.
If the movie remains faithfully to the concept of idealism, we should be seeing a disjointed, highly perceptive and illogical muddle of dreams. The movie would make sense completely, but it would not be worth watching, this was pointed out by Harvard University dream researcher Deirdre Barrett.
So naturally, aspects of reality have to be incorporated within. And it did.
2) There is also strong hint that the themes of the movie is more than just dreams, but a play on the concept of realities
In the movie we see a lot of clues that point that the 'dreams' the characters are transversing are NOT idealizations, but actually realities on their own, no matter how warped it may seem. In the movie we see how many people are able to not only share the same dream, but to also bring in idealisms of their own to alter the parent dream of the target dreamer. The introduction of Leonardo's wife, and the train, and how Page manages to alter the reality of Leonardo's dream, hints that the 'dream' they are in doesn't belong fully Leonardo's but rather is a dream-scape originally from him, but subjective to modification, and re-conceptualization by other people. Simply speaking- think of it as a shared dream.
3) The problem of depicting it in the idea of realities- in form of a shared dream.
What is the problem with that? A shared dream, strictly speaking, is not a 'dream', and cannot be an idealization, because it does not belong to a single person's mind (ideal). You would hardly call the net-scape an idealized dream, because the world wide web is verifiable and accessible to more than a single person. You would even not call this reality a idealization, since (excluding God) to whose dream does it belong then? Rather, we would very conveniently call this a reality. But not in the case of inception- their shared dream appears like a reality.
4) A series of Realities imply TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM
Alright, so its not really a simple dream after all where we may wake up to a real world where falling off your toilet bowl means ouch, but rather like second-life, to lose oneself within. Yet, its the idea of a second life, or by all means a third or fourth life, that proves his wife to be CORRECT- that reality itself is no more than an idealized dream of a higher realism . There is no terminal end to this series of realities, each of which is a shared dream of another bigger shared dream, and an infinite loop of TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM will occur.
5) Meaning
And since Leonardo is forever in a dream, the totem should never fall.
The reason of limbo does not answer the question of the falling totem
There is speculation of a 3rd indicator- a final possibility that Leonardo is in limbo, or an idealized state of mind at the end of the show. While the concept of limbo implies that his body must be somewhere real (and there must be a real terminal end), we must bear in mind that it is NOT known if he is alive or dead at the end of the movie. So while this remains in doubt, the existence of a limbo cannot answer the question should the totem fall or not.
(Note: The question of the following totem answers the question if he is in limbo, but not vice versa)
Afterword
Well, in light of the fact that Inception is a movie that necessarily blends realistic aspects with idealized aspects to give the story weight, yet credibility (we saw what would happen if pure idealizations was used in); this very technical fact would imply that the totem should and should not fall at the same time. Should we wish to give maximum credit to the aspects and surrealism of the story, we would naturally have believed that the totem would not fall. But bearing in mind that the main target audiences of the film, we ought not deviate too far from the intended themes of 'just a play of dreams in life' and simply accept the belief that it will eventually fall.
Personally, I do not write this post in blatant criticism of the film, or the movie. I would agree that it would be best to leave it as a cliff-hanger, and allow both the layman and those in pursuit of deeper themes, to work their and see meaning own conclusions as they deem fit. Please do not use this post against me, or as an objective argument against others. The concepts of realism and idealism really transcend the boundaries of human knowledge, even in this plane of existence as I type, and much as I would like to speculate, I do not wish to assume that I know the answer of this question.
Enough madness- we need to get back to reality (what reality?)
Alright, the title speaks of my topic of the day- what I will say is really beyond the scope of the plot, so pardon me as I bring the nukes in.
One question that many people would ask about Inception is about the outcome of the spinning totem. Basically in the movie, Leonardo's totem would indicate objectively if he is within dream-scape, or is he back in reality. If it falls, its real, if it doesn't, he probably needs to wake up his idea.
Another question that was brought into the table is the 'fallacy' of his wife- that reality itself is no more than an idealized dream of a higher reality. One grave implication is that should she be right, then there technically can be an infinity of transcendental realities. In the movie it is implied that she is wrong, and there is an objective reality that the characters can return to.
Well, lets start by asking the same question as many would- would the totem fall?
First Postulate
On hindsight, yes. All implications points to the outcome that the totem should fall, since 1) it rounds up nicely the whole plot of 3 dreams. 2) it proves his wife is wrong (and we really hope his wife is). 3) Leonardo gets his happy ending, which is like awwww. Of course it would save me the entire problem of going into the transcendental problem, and I really dislike thinking too much over something that someone's ideas (movie) when I could really be doing more constructive things like cleaning my room or going to the zoo.
Whats wrong with the first postulate?
But the happy way out falls short of reason should more thought be brought into the movie. Not in terms of pure critique, but also in imagery and depiction. Fundamentally, the movie would be portraying dreams and reality rather inaccurately. The major reason? There is too much a hint of transcendental idealism, than transcendental realism within the movie itself. This leads to my belief that the 'dreams' the characters have, are not true mental (idealized) perceptions, but rather objectively (realized) shared perceptions of a diminished (but evident) reality.
HUH? Okay, so we have to go deeper into the rabbit hole. By doing this, we will have to bring into question the concepts of transcendental idealism and transcendental realism.
A bit on the 2 nukes: Transcendental Idealism and Realism
What is transcendental idealism, or transcendental realism?
Loosely speaking, transcendental idealism is a Kantian postulate that humans may only appreciate, and experience reality as how they appear (or are idealized by the person) to be. Strictly speaking, space and time (reality) is no more than relationships between idealized proponents, since the mind does not perceive distance in and of themselves, but rather relates it in relation to what it deems as distance and duration. Simply speaking to the individual, whatever bullshit there may be, it is all a dream, and the dream is the end of all things.
On the other hand, transcendental realism is a philosophical idea that there is an objective reality the dreamers (or every human) know consciously, which transcends the Kantian transcendental idealism. What it really is is just adding on a counterargument on top of Kant's icing- yes, transcendental idealism holds, but humans are able to understand, and transcendental that idealism to appreciate that there is a reality out there that is really independent of what we may fancifully dream it to be.
A note on realism, idealism, TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM and TRANSCENDENTAL REALISM
So one important thing we have to clear before we proceed on- realism does not equate to transcendental realism, and idealism does not equate to transcendental idealism. Realism and idealism can be used in conjunction, since there is no possible way to know, or verify if a plane of existence is real or ideal.
Yet, the concept of transcendental realism means that realism is the terminal (or highest) form of this plane of existence. The concept of transcendental idealism means that idealism is the terminal form; however, we must understand that it does not make sense to believe in a mind floating in non-existence. So if we were to advocate transcendental idealism in its pure form, we're going to have an infinite plane of existences, or 'realities' so as to speak.
To keep things clear, we will use the following words in this style.
1) reality, 2) idealizations, 3) TRANSCENDENTAL REALISM and 4) TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM.
So what is the implications of Inception to these 2 nukes?
Okay coming back from la-la-land, so how does these two grandfather's story have in relation to a simple movie of Inception? Putting these concepts back, if it is indeed true that the totem doesn't fall, objective reality cannot hold- since his wife postulate that reality itself is but another idealized dream would bear truth. Since objectivity cannot hold, then we will have an infinite loop of idealizations. The concept of TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM, or that all apparent reality is no more than part of a mental construe of a higher idealization (or dream) would thus be the defining theme of the movie.
If the totem fell, the concepts of TRANSCENDENTAL REALISM would hold. So in other words, there is a base level of reality (instead of an infinite cycle of dreams), there is objectivity, and there is a terminal reality for us to return to. Life then, wouldn't be so complex.
in conclusion:
A) TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM = totem don't fall
B) TRANSCENDENTAL REALISM = totem falls
So what is the big problem?
1) There is a some hints that its just a movie about dreams (idealizations)
The big problem only arises when we start confusing one transcendent for another. In a setting of inception, where the idea of a team of people invading a single person's dreams, the natural concept of idealism has to hold. Since its one person's (idealized) dream that is the reality of things, and the dream-scape of the person would really be the world for everybody to do their work within. This was mentioned in good detail, that the people in the dream-scape are merely projections of his mind, and how the team has to remain low to avoid detection by the 'god' of this transcendentally diminished world (aka the dreamer). Another obvious clue is when the dreamer has the power to warp the world as he wishes and bend all logical boundaries.
If the movie remains faithfully to the concept of idealism, we should be seeing a disjointed, highly perceptive and illogical muddle of dreams. The movie would make sense completely, but it would not be worth watching, this was pointed out by Harvard University dream researcher Deirdre Barrett.
So naturally, aspects of reality have to be incorporated within. And it did.
2) There is also strong hint that the themes of the movie is more than just dreams, but a play on the concept of realities
In the movie we see a lot of clues that point that the 'dreams' the characters are transversing are NOT idealizations, but actually realities on their own, no matter how warped it may seem. In the movie we see how many people are able to not only share the same dream, but to also bring in idealisms of their own to alter the parent dream of the target dreamer. The introduction of Leonardo's wife, and the train, and how Page manages to alter the reality of Leonardo's dream, hints that the 'dream' they are in doesn't belong fully Leonardo's but rather is a dream-scape originally from him, but subjective to modification, and re-conceptualization by other people. Simply speaking- think of it as a shared dream.
3) The problem of depicting it in the idea of realities- in form of a shared dream.
What is the problem with that? A shared dream, strictly speaking, is not a 'dream', and cannot be an idealization, because it does not belong to a single person's mind (ideal). You would hardly call the net-scape an idealized dream, because the world wide web is verifiable and accessible to more than a single person. You would even not call this reality a idealization, since (excluding God) to whose dream does it belong then? Rather, we would very conveniently call this a reality. But not in the case of inception- their shared dream appears like a reality.
4) A series of Realities imply TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM
4a) When there is a series of realities, you get an infinite loop of realities.
4b) In a case of a reality in another, the smaller reality becomes an idealization.
4c) The concept of TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM holds.
Alright, so its not really a simple dream after all where we may wake up to a real world where falling off your toilet bowl means ouch, but rather like second-life, to lose oneself within. Yet, its the idea of a second life, or by all means a third or fourth life, that proves his wife to be CORRECT- that reality itself is no more than an idealized dream of a higher realism . There is no terminal end to this series of realities, each of which is a shared dream of another bigger shared dream, and an infinite loop of TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM will occur.
5) Meaning
And since Leonardo is forever in a dream, the totem should never fall.
The reason of limbo does not answer the question of the falling totem
There is speculation of a 3rd indicator- a final possibility that Leonardo is in limbo, or an idealized state of mind at the end of the show. While the concept of limbo implies that his body must be somewhere real (and there must be a real terminal end), we must bear in mind that it is NOT known if he is alive or dead at the end of the movie. So while this remains in doubt, the existence of a limbo cannot answer the question should the totem fall or not.
(Note: The question of the following totem answers the question if he is in limbo, but not vice versa)
Afterword
Well, in light of the fact that Inception is a movie that necessarily blends realistic aspects with idealized aspects to give the story weight, yet credibility (we saw what would happen if pure idealizations was used in); this very technical fact would imply that the totem should and should not fall at the same time. Should we wish to give maximum credit to the aspects and surrealism of the story, we would naturally have believed that the totem would not fall. But bearing in mind that the main target audiences of the film, we ought not deviate too far from the intended themes of 'just a play of dreams in life' and simply accept the belief that it will eventually fall.
Personally, I do not write this post in blatant criticism of the film, or the movie. I would agree that it would be best to leave it as a cliff-hanger, and allow both the layman and those in pursuit of deeper themes, to work their and see meaning own conclusions as they deem fit. Please do not use this post against me, or as an objective argument against others. The concepts of realism and idealism really transcend the boundaries of human knowledge, even in this plane of existence as I type, and much as I would like to speculate, I do not wish to assume that I know the answer of this question.
Enough madness- we need to get back to reality (what reality?)
03 August 2010
Hiring
Yes, I know I don't usually propagate deals on my blog, but let this be an exception.
I need proof-readers for a prototype story. But before I start hiring people into an unknown deal which might end up compromising their virginity or lives, below listed are some of the possible things you might want to look for:
The story to be proof-read is a prototype story. This means that the story itself is not complete, and there is little reference stories (of the similar genre) to draw comparison from. The general themes of the story is a merge of 'slice-of-life genres', 'contemporary realistic narration' and philosophical ideals. The scope of philosophy can range from simple opinions to transcendentalism.
The general setting of the story is about 16-17 year old females in Junior College. There is no restriction on males in the story, or whether the story go beyond the school-life setting. But for now we won't be expecting space marines in lion suits, or dream thieves out in a conspiracy to save humanity from total annihilation from the masala wars of little India. (although the themes of transcendentalism is worth expanding upon)
The aims of this project is a story that introduce the above-mentioned philosophical ideals in contemporary living, and see how they can be emplace realistically. This story is on a private domain, so don't worry, we will not use any of your points against you in the court of law.
Okay, we have got the general gist of the story out so far, now a few things for aspiring proof readers:
1) Be okay with slice-of-life-themes (this one is no problem at all to most of us, as long as you live a life)
2) Be okay with fictional girls who are NOT sexualized. (Yes, no porn, and no Moe Moe Kyun-s)
3) Appreciative of the deeper ends of philo and idealism. I DO NOT mean that you have to be intellectual, or must be passionate for philosophy to proof-read this story. Just as long as you don't have a revolt for it, or stereotype it to be 'cheem stuff' meant for old men or elitists.
4) Lastly, I need a definite opinion, so please don't say "It's cool" or "It sucks" without justifying how or why. Any form of justification is accepted, and there is no 'you are smarter than I am' nonsense. I don't need a 800 word critique (although I don't mind), or literary analysis, but at least- a follow up on MSN would do just fine.
5) You may suggest anything- from new characters, to pointing flaws in argumentation or in-feasibility of thought. And should you wish, be part of the construct team. Of course I myself will take responsibility to ensure that all opinions will be taken under serious consideration. An online copy will be made available for your reference and editing then.
The pay for this proof-read is transacted in bottles of iced lemon tea. It is non-refundable or non-transactional, if you don't like iced lemon tea, any non-alcoholic drinks are available at your request.
Otherwise have fun, and I'll be looking forward to hear from you soon.
I need proof-readers for a prototype story. But before I start hiring people into an unknown deal which might end up compromising their virginity or lives, below listed are some of the possible things you might want to look for:
The story to be proof-read is a prototype story. This means that the story itself is not complete, and there is little reference stories (of the similar genre) to draw comparison from. The general themes of the story is a merge of 'slice-of-life genres', 'contemporary realistic narration' and philosophical ideals. The scope of philosophy can range from simple opinions to transcendentalism.
The general setting of the story is about 16-17 year old females in Junior College. There is no restriction on males in the story, or whether the story go beyond the school-life setting. But for now we won't be expecting space marines in lion suits, or dream thieves out in a conspiracy to save humanity from total annihilation from the masala wars of little India. (although the themes of transcendentalism is worth expanding upon)
The aims of this project is a story that introduce the above-mentioned philosophical ideals in contemporary living, and see how they can be emplace realistically. This story is on a private domain, so don't worry, we will not use any of your points against you in the court of law.
Okay, we have got the general gist of the story out so far, now a few things for aspiring proof readers:
1) Be okay with slice-of-life-themes (this one is no problem at all to most of us, as long as you live a life)
2) Be okay with fictional girls who are NOT sexualized. (Yes, no porn, and no Moe Moe Kyun-s)
3) Appreciative of the deeper ends of philo and idealism. I DO NOT mean that you have to be intellectual, or must be passionate for philosophy to proof-read this story. Just as long as you don't have a revolt for it, or stereotype it to be 'cheem stuff' meant for old men or elitists.
4) Lastly, I need a definite opinion, so please don't say "It's cool" or "It sucks" without justifying how or why. Any form of justification is accepted, and there is no 'you are smarter than I am' nonsense. I don't need a 800 word critique (although I don't mind), or literary analysis, but at least- a follow up on MSN would do just fine.
5) You may suggest anything- from new characters, to pointing flaws in argumentation or in-feasibility of thought. And should you wish, be part of the construct team. Of course I myself will take responsibility to ensure that all opinions will be taken under serious consideration. An online copy will be made available for your reference and editing then.
The pay for this proof-read is transacted in bottles of iced lemon tea. It is non-refundable or non-transactional, if you don't like iced lemon tea, any non-alcoholic drinks are available at your request.
Otherwise have fun, and I'll be looking forward to hear from you soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)