Sleepless, dreamless,
doubtless, fearless, darkness
creeps upon my face;
wipe it off and see the days'
early sunbeams strike the eyes
like a million tiny flies
buzz buzz buzz - I am awake
but the body screams "no more"
and the very soul seems sore
From this knowledge - I would weep!
When I know I'lll get no sleep
Not from pleading, nor from praying,
not by going, nor by staying,
not by roaring, nor by rhyming -
what's the deal?
Silence, stillness,
darkness, illness, sleepless
lie I by her side
and the soft, enchanting tide
of my senses' obfuscation
of my very mind's sedation
draws upon me like a mist
and then- yeah, you get the gist:
In this senseless, sleepless ache
I am doomed to stay awake -
And I cannot help but wonder
what's the deal?
onsdag 28 november 2007
fredag 23 november 2007
This is madness!
It's in the middle of the night and I can't stop typing.
God and Free Will.
There, I said it. I've been thinking about that too, and I have more arguments. Just stop reading at this point if you're tired of me.
I think we all know this argument - if God knows everything, it is impossible for free will to exist, since He would have predicted our actions already. (For a writer who's not strictly religious, I capitalize God a lot, I just realized).
Anywho: If God knows everything, we cannot have free will, because our actions would be predicted. But really - why does this have to be? I'll take a mundane example.
I flip a coin. In doing so, I don't determine the outcome, yet I know the outcome will be either heads or tails (or, possibly, it will land on edge). I know these are the possible outcomes. I know perfectly well how the "heads" and "tails" on the coin look, and if we want to get nitpicky, let's say I've carefully studied every other factor in the room. The only thing I don't know is the force used to flip the coin (obviously, as this is hard to measure beforehand). I still know everything about the coin being flipped and about all the possible outcomes, I just cannot predict it.
Omniscence, by definition, is the ability to know everything, which includes every possible action (but, as in the previous post, not actions that could not logically occur). Presuming God knows all, does this really limit our free will? Yes, God can perfectly predict what outcomes will come of my choice to buy ice cream or not, but He does not cause either choice, he simply knows both alternatives. This possibility, of course, requires that God knows everything that could potentially happen, not just everything that happens. This, of course, amounts to an infinite amount of knowledge, but that's no problem since that is the very definition of omniscence.
Does this explanation make sense? It's kind of Schrödingers' Cat-ish in nature and I don't know how well physics-con-philosophy-con-pop-culture applies to theology, but I had to write this down, or I'd forget it.
God and Free Will.
There, I said it. I've been thinking about that too, and I have more arguments. Just stop reading at this point if you're tired of me.
I think we all know this argument - if God knows everything, it is impossible for free will to exist, since He would have predicted our actions already. (For a writer who's not strictly religious, I capitalize God a lot, I just realized).
Anywho: If God knows everything, we cannot have free will, because our actions would be predicted. But really - why does this have to be? I'll take a mundane example.
I flip a coin. In doing so, I don't determine the outcome, yet I know the outcome will be either heads or tails (or, possibly, it will land on edge). I know these are the possible outcomes. I know perfectly well how the "heads" and "tails" on the coin look, and if we want to get nitpicky, let's say I've carefully studied every other factor in the room. The only thing I don't know is the force used to flip the coin (obviously, as this is hard to measure beforehand). I still know everything about the coin being flipped and about all the possible outcomes, I just cannot predict it.
Omniscence, by definition, is the ability to know everything, which includes every possible action (but, as in the previous post, not actions that could not logically occur). Presuming God knows all, does this really limit our free will? Yes, God can perfectly predict what outcomes will come of my choice to buy ice cream or not, but He does not cause either choice, he simply knows both alternatives. This possibility, of course, requires that God knows everything that could potentially happen, not just everything that happens. This, of course, amounts to an infinite amount of knowledge, but that's no problem since that is the very definition of omniscence.
Does this explanation make sense? It's kind of Schrödingers' Cat-ish in nature and I don't know how well physics-con-philosophy-con-pop-culture applies to theology, but I had to write this down, or I'd forget it.
Some More Theology
Inspired by Sara, I would like to add a private philosophy of my own to the debate about God. This is an old and probably leaky theory, but I'd like to figure out exactly how it leaks, so responses are welcome.
Basically, I theorized a while back about the seeming inconclusiveness in God's attributes. Theologists summarise God as:
1. Omniscent, All-knowing
2. Omnipotent, All-powerful
3. Omnibeneficient, All-good
4. Omnipresent, i.e. Everywhere
and
5. Eternal and always existing.
This is basically how God is described, and most arguments against His existence are based on that these cannot fit together. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful he cannot also be all-good, since he would know disasters beforehand and prevent them. There's no goodness in introducing diseases to the world, and arguments about "testing Man" strike me as a tad ridiculous.
But, I figured - if we're to adhere to the principles of Logic, the definition of all-powerful becomes interesting. Basically - can an all-powerful being do something logically impossible? Those who argue against God's existence generally say God should be able to do this - i.e. create a rock so large he cannot lift it. But if we presume that logic restricts God, not because God is flawed but because logic is the natural boundary of all that exists - illogical events not only cannot occur, but in fact, are not part of the universe.
In this case, God cannot do something logically impossible. This does not restrict his omnipotence in any way, because illogical events simply do not exist. The argument is valid because an omnipotent being couldn't perform a non-existing action anymore than he could pet a non-existent dog.
If this is the case, might it not be so that God foresaw the world from the point where everything started (since he knows literally everything), saw a myriad logically possible universes, and then created the best one? Every improvement, say, a world where murder was impossible, would have logical consequences that would be harmful. Therefore, God saw all the myriad possible universes and created the best one. This certainly satisfies that omniscence, omnipotence and omnibenevolence fits together.
Does this satisfy the idea of a logically coherent God?
Basically, I theorized a while back about the seeming inconclusiveness in God's attributes. Theologists summarise God as:
1. Omniscent, All-knowing
2. Omnipotent, All-powerful
3. Omnibeneficient, All-good
4. Omnipresent, i.e. Everywhere
and
5. Eternal and always existing.
This is basically how God is described, and most arguments against His existence are based on that these cannot fit together. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful he cannot also be all-good, since he would know disasters beforehand and prevent them. There's no goodness in introducing diseases to the world, and arguments about "testing Man" strike me as a tad ridiculous.
But, I figured - if we're to adhere to the principles of Logic, the definition of all-powerful becomes interesting. Basically - can an all-powerful being do something logically impossible? Those who argue against God's existence generally say God should be able to do this - i.e. create a rock so large he cannot lift it. But if we presume that logic restricts God, not because God is flawed but because logic is the natural boundary of all that exists - illogical events not only cannot occur, but in fact, are not part of the universe.
In this case, God cannot do something logically impossible. This does not restrict his omnipotence in any way, because illogical events simply do not exist. The argument is valid because an omnipotent being couldn't perform a non-existing action anymore than he could pet a non-existent dog.
If this is the case, might it not be so that God foresaw the world from the point where everything started (since he knows literally everything), saw a myriad logically possible universes, and then created the best one? Every improvement, say, a world where murder was impossible, would have logical consequences that would be harmful. Therefore, God saw all the myriad possible universes and created the best one. This certainly satisfies that omniscence, omnipotence and omnibenevolence fits together.
Does this satisfy the idea of a logically coherent God?
tisdag 20 november 2007
Loneliness
Friendship is relative. Loneliness is absolute.
It's frightening how such a thing can sneak up on you. I woke up in the middle of the night, my sleep pattern no doubt torn to pieces by my unhealthy habits, and loneliness itself stood at my bedpost, staring me in the eyes. Do not misinterpret me - Loneliness is not about being on one's own. I can handle being all by myself - I even enjoy it a lot more than other people I've met.
This is not the same thing as loneliness. Loneliness is a cold, strange realisation that creeps upon one when it's not expected, the weird realization that, despite ones' best efforts, we are always vulnerable to ourselves. Think about that last sentence. You are always vulnerable to yourself.
Therein, I think, lies the real reason to fear loneliness.
It's frightening how such a thing can sneak up on you. I woke up in the middle of the night, my sleep pattern no doubt torn to pieces by my unhealthy habits, and loneliness itself stood at my bedpost, staring me in the eyes. Do not misinterpret me - Loneliness is not about being on one's own. I can handle being all by myself - I even enjoy it a lot more than other people I've met.
This is not the same thing as loneliness. Loneliness is a cold, strange realisation that creeps upon one when it's not expected, the weird realization that, despite ones' best efforts, we are always vulnerable to ourselves. Think about that last sentence. You are always vulnerable to yourself.
Therein, I think, lies the real reason to fear loneliness.
fredag 16 november 2007
Self-Improvement
I post very briefly after actor! I sorry!
I be self-improvement in life. I study charisma, by the mirror, and have pretty wife who don't like me. Sometime, life as Simian Sim sucks. Still, I be making advancement, in carreer and in life. And I be thinking - is self-improvement goal of life? Is big question for someone primarily primate. Self-improvement is what happen in many games. Role-playing games be all about making better. Or making improvement. Sometime, though, making improvement is not about make better, I thinks.
For instance: If I develop as person, but not develop skills, is that improvement? Or make better? I be thinking about it lot. Get big carreer, sure, self-improvement. But does it make better? Does I really is a better person if I mayor or rocket scientist? Or does I really better person if I smile more? You see point? It are two perspectives on life: Perfectionist want improvement, want grow strong and practice skills. Hedonist want to live life and enjoy it. Which one make better? Maybe both make better?
I don't know. I just a Sim that looks like monkey.
I be self-improvement in life. I study charisma, by the mirror, and have pretty wife who don't like me. Sometime, life as Simian Sim sucks. Still, I be making advancement, in carreer and in life. And I be thinking - is self-improvement goal of life? Is big question for someone primarily primate. Self-improvement is what happen in many games. Role-playing games be all about making better. Or making improvement. Sometime, though, making improvement is not about make better, I thinks.
For instance: If I develop as person, but not develop skills, is that improvement? Or make better? I be thinking about it lot. Get big carreer, sure, self-improvement. But does it make better? Does I really is a better person if I mayor or rocket scientist? Or does I really better person if I smile more? You see point? It are two perspectives on life: Perfectionist want improvement, want grow strong and practice skills. Hedonist want to live life and enjoy it. Which one make better? Maybe both make better?
I don't know. I just a Sim that looks like monkey.
Playwrights and Murder
We had the very first theatre meeting yesterday. What did I think?
Not sure. I think it was the first time when I got the role to coordinate people in a more-or-less serious setting, and actually made it work. The point of it was, of course, amusement, being the first meeting - so we worked from our plans, but soon found out that they were insufficient.
So I started improvising, pulling out old theatre practice games from my time in Slovenia. I think it went well, but something inside me tells me that you're not supposed to improvise in organised and serious settings. Still, the older I get, the more I believe that truly successful people really just make shit up as they go along.
We also went through some potential plays. Master and Margarita was mentioned, which I certainly wouldn't object to - adding to that, Mormor Gråter, The Mushroom Murders Mystery, a Shakespeare potpurri, and - About Love. I think, unfortunately, that the latter would be hard. On the other hand, so would Master and Margarita.
Aside from that, we tried gaming over IRC for the first time yesterday. That requires no acting skills whatsoever, which is nice because it means you can be much more relaxed while doing it. It's also less fun, but I've found that recently sloth defeats fun for my part a whole lot more often than I like. I should try to change that somehow. Ideas?
Also, I made sims, in Sims II, that look like monkeys. This is probably my greatest achievement since school started.
Not sure. I think it was the first time when I got the role to coordinate people in a more-or-less serious setting, and actually made it work. The point of it was, of course, amusement, being the first meeting - so we worked from our plans, but soon found out that they were insufficient.
So I started improvising, pulling out old theatre practice games from my time in Slovenia. I think it went well, but something inside me tells me that you're not supposed to improvise in organised and serious settings. Still, the older I get, the more I believe that truly successful people really just make shit up as they go along.
We also went through some potential plays. Master and Margarita was mentioned, which I certainly wouldn't object to - adding to that, Mormor Gråter, The Mushroom Murders Mystery, a Shakespeare potpurri, and - About Love. I think, unfortunately, that the latter would be hard. On the other hand, so would Master and Margarita.
Aside from that, we tried gaming over IRC for the first time yesterday. That requires no acting skills whatsoever, which is nice because it means you can be much more relaxed while doing it. It's also less fun, but I've found that recently sloth defeats fun for my part a whole lot more often than I like. I should try to change that somehow. Ideas?
Also, I made sims, in Sims II, that look like monkeys. This is probably my greatest achievement since school started.
tisdag 13 november 2007
Freaks, Perverts, and Ordinary Folks
So I was reading the previous publishing, and that got me thinking. Society of today, you know, has a lot of scapegoats when it comes to sex. Pedophiles, rapists, all of those people have come to represent that which we hate the most, because people do hate pedophiles and rapists, very intensively. But why are we all so antagonistic towards them, specifically? I mean sure, there's talk about how sexual abuse ruins peoples' lives and all that jazz, but - newsflash, people - murderers end peoples' lives. Shouldn't we be more scared of those?
So now I'm thinking: Maybe what we fear in the abusers is more about ourselves. I mean, it stands to reason that none of us have seriously considered, you know, killing someone. But I bet pretty much everyone's had some sort of weird, sexual, deviant fantasy - and there's why it's so scary when others act on them. We know that, if circumstances were difference, that could be you on the tabloids. Then again, sex is a pretty open thing today, nothin' you have to sneak with usually. It's been stated numerous times that your sexual orientation ain't nothing you can change, at least not for most people - and so it's okay to be queer or date two people at the same time. But what if you are one of those people, the bad people, the people who get horny from watching little boys undress? What's there to do about it?
One outta two things, it seems. Either you push it down, ignore it, and spend your life hating perverts for acting on what you're pushing down, or you become the pervert.
Man. I'm glad I ain't no pedophile. That would really make existence suck.
So now I'm thinking: Maybe what we fear in the abusers is more about ourselves. I mean, it stands to reason that none of us have seriously considered, you know, killing someone. But I bet pretty much everyone's had some sort of weird, sexual, deviant fantasy - and there's why it's so scary when others act on them. We know that, if circumstances were difference, that could be you on the tabloids. Then again, sex is a pretty open thing today, nothin' you have to sneak with usually. It's been stated numerous times that your sexual orientation ain't nothing you can change, at least not for most people - and so it's okay to be queer or date two people at the same time. But what if you are one of those people, the bad people, the people who get horny from watching little boys undress? What's there to do about it?
One outta two things, it seems. Either you push it down, ignore it, and spend your life hating perverts for acting on what you're pushing down, or you become the pervert.
Man. I'm glad I ain't no pedophile. That would really make existence suck.
måndag 12 november 2007
Modern Witche Trials
Lawks!
Witch trials never go out of style, mark my words. What am I thinking of now? Just another little controversy, that might be brough up for discussion, namely how To Catch a Predator. This is an American show, in which television helps the Law to catch sexual predators. Now, that's all fine and dandy since they're sexual predators, which are dangerous people -
hold your horses, TV people can become the law, now?
There's an old Very Wise saying about such a system: In America, you watch television. In Soviet Russia, television watch you!
So now television watch us. Or at least, people who are suspected sexual predators. They don't have any actual authority, but who cares? If you get arrested, your identity is protected (more or less) and you're placed in a prison cell for a few years. It's probably going to ruin your life, to a great extent. If you get revealed as a sexual predator on live television, though - wow. If that's not a great motive for suicide, I don't know what is. In light of how difficult it is for some of us to sympathise with Mr. Flinga, these people must be ostracized for life.
So what? They're bad people, right?
Disregarding the risk of innocents being caught - which is probably possible, if not likely - you're still overstepping the boundaries of what you legally can and cannot do. Exposing a person's crimes publically and then so utterly ruining their lives might be seen as "just", in light of what crimes they've not yet committed (mind you, all they have actually done is shown the intent of having sex with a minor), but it's still something that the Law should handle, not the media.
You have a right to a fair trial, sure. You do not have the right to escape forever becoming branded as a sexual predator, which - second to terrorists, of course - are the worst people on earth and deserve to be killed in nasty ways.
Witch trials, indeed. Lawks.
Witch trials never go out of style, mark my words. What am I thinking of now? Just another little controversy, that might be brough up for discussion, namely how To Catch a Predator. This is an American show, in which television helps the Law to catch sexual predators. Now, that's all fine and dandy since they're sexual predators, which are dangerous people -
hold your horses, TV people can become the law, now?
There's an old Very Wise saying about such a system: In America, you watch television. In Soviet Russia, television watch you!
So now television watch us. Or at least, people who are suspected sexual predators. They don't have any actual authority, but who cares? If you get arrested, your identity is protected (more or less) and you're placed in a prison cell for a few years. It's probably going to ruin your life, to a great extent. If you get revealed as a sexual predator on live television, though - wow. If that's not a great motive for suicide, I don't know what is. In light of how difficult it is for some of us to sympathise with Mr. Flinga, these people must be ostracized for life.
So what? They're bad people, right?
Disregarding the risk of innocents being caught - which is probably possible, if not likely - you're still overstepping the boundaries of what you legally can and cannot do. Exposing a person's crimes publically and then so utterly ruining their lives might be seen as "just", in light of what crimes they've not yet committed (mind you, all they have actually done is shown the intent of having sex with a minor), but it's still something that the Law should handle, not the media.
You have a right to a fair trial, sure. You do not have the right to escape forever becoming branded as a sexual predator, which - second to terrorists, of course - are the worst people on earth and deserve to be killed in nasty ways.
Witch trials, indeed. Lawks.
tisdag 6 november 2007
Beautiful Madness
I'm terribly sorry about the double-post, you guys, but if I could rant a little about how difficult it is to design cults and do horror, I think I should rave a little about how intoxicatingly addicting I find Changeling: The Lost to be.
Changelings are threatened by insanity, especially in the form of a fractured and slowly decaying personality. That this appeals to a favourite theme of mine (the destruction or altering of someones' identity) is only the first part of the equation.
Changeling manages to take the social/political approach to plotlines possessed by Vampire, and mingle it with the mysteries and close brushes with the supernatural of Mage. Add to this the element of fairy-tale magic, and there's a perfect recipe for a game system (and setting) that can be tweaked and altered according to the wishes of those who tell the story. There's no real problem to make a society of changelings bent on controlling mortals - they have good reason to, and can be just as abusive as vampires, meaning the social aspects can be highlighted. You can also twist the tale the other way, making the changelings relatively benevolent and unified against the mysteries of the World of Darkness.
So why do I post about this? Because it's a problem. It's too big for me to use. It's a giant-sized palette, and whichever way I do it, I feel as though I should use slightly more or slightly less of some hues. Too much of something good...
I think my inspiration is on fire.
Changelings are threatened by insanity, especially in the form of a fractured and slowly decaying personality. That this appeals to a favourite theme of mine (the destruction or altering of someones' identity) is only the first part of the equation.
Changeling manages to take the social/political approach to plotlines possessed by Vampire, and mingle it with the mysteries and close brushes with the supernatural of Mage. Add to this the element of fairy-tale magic, and there's a perfect recipe for a game system (and setting) that can be tweaked and altered according to the wishes of those who tell the story. There's no real problem to make a society of changelings bent on controlling mortals - they have good reason to, and can be just as abusive as vampires, meaning the social aspects can be highlighted. You can also twist the tale the other way, making the changelings relatively benevolent and unified against the mysteries of the World of Darkness.
So why do I post about this? Because it's a problem. It's too big for me to use. It's a giant-sized palette, and whichever way I do it, I feel as though I should use slightly more or slightly less of some hues. Too much of something good...
I think my inspiration is on fire.
måndag 5 november 2007
World of Darkness
So I've been working on how to portray cults in a good light as of late, and I gotta say, I need to study up on my Call of Cthulhu. Cults are fascinating, but I can't get them just right - either they wind up too much hoods-and-robes á la Indiana Jones, or they become too harmless to really seem like a threat.
The difficulty, I think, lies in trying to portray the Evil that Men Do, for after all, not every threat has to be supernatural. So I drop them into a creepy little place and have a sacrifice or two - and then I go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like "CTHULHU". Honestly. I have too much a pull towards portraying the supernatural, but I could use a healthy dose of just good old humans doing some good old evil. If anyone has suggestions for how tell a story about a cult (aside from Eyes Wide Shut), feel free to add in a comment.
Otherwise I'm working on stories for Mage, but I keep getting tangled. Somehow I'm not entirely pleased with myself. Mysteries are like ketchup - first it's simple, then it's simple, then suddenly you've lost track of the storyline yourself. And then in the process of cleaning it up, things go back to being simple again. Something tells me I should just improvise.
Spoiler alert: There will be cults in the Mage game too. Yeah. It was the best idea I could come up with, after having worked on cults all day.
The difficulty, I think, lies in trying to portray the Evil that Men Do, for after all, not every threat has to be supernatural. So I drop them into a creepy little place and have a sacrifice or two - and then I go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like "CTHULHU". Honestly. I have too much a pull towards portraying the supernatural, but I could use a healthy dose of just good old humans doing some good old evil. If anyone has suggestions for how tell a story about a cult (aside from Eyes Wide Shut), feel free to add in a comment.
Otherwise I'm working on stories for Mage, but I keep getting tangled. Somehow I'm not entirely pleased with myself. Mysteries are like ketchup - first it's simple, then it's simple, then suddenly you've lost track of the storyline yourself. And then in the process of cleaning it up, things go back to being simple again. Something tells me I should just improvise.
Spoiler alert: There will be cults in the Mage game too. Yeah. It was the best idea I could come up with, after having worked on cults all day.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)