Why do women conspicuously endeavour to make men fall in love with them and strive to get men to give women their hearts if all they do with our hearts is just break them into pieces afterward? Perhaps it is the hope of all men to be in love with someone who’s also in love with them even for a moment. Perhaps, it is this hope that drives men to subsist. I suppose I just answered my first question. It must be a biological imperative that women make men chase them even if men’s love is unrequited. The survival of the male masses are dependent on this hope. Is that what a midlife crisis is? Is a midlife crisis the point in time a man realizes that love is simply not in his cards?
It seems so frivolous to enjoy something without someone else with whom to share the experience. How do you know you’re in love? If all else seems frivolous without that person. Therefore I suppose the real definition of confidence is living a life in which the enjoyment of life is possible alone. It seems to be this very trait to which women are most attracted. Their actions are therefore hypocritical. On the one hand, they are drawn to men who do not need their love but on the other, are seemingly indifferent toward men who are in love with them.
I suppose the most fundamental question is: how can a man enjoy live regardless of other people? The answer, I believe, is personal achievement. At the end of the day, it’s not man versus man. It’s man versus himself. Man can find confidence in pushing his own limits.
When peoples of different race, culture, language or customs are brought together into the same geographic region and the conditions are created for intermixing, the ultimate result is naturally a blending of those ethnic groups. The identity and uniqueness of those original cultural groups becomes eroded over time with each passing generation and is progressively replaced by an overwhelming mono-culture. Analogously, if a can of black paint is mixed with a can of white paint in the same container, it forms one entirely new colour. The resulting grey paint doesn’t differ from any other colour because there is no other colour. There is only one colour left. One thing. One entity. If racial diversity is a good thing, as some of our leaders profess it to be, then why bring people of different races together in the same region when the ensuing race-mixing would only bring about less diversity, not more?
In order for democracy to function properly, one of its requirements is that the electorate have sufficient knowledge of all candidates running for any given political office. So what percentage of the modern public goes out of their way to research all competing candidates instead of just passively swallowing the political propaganda in the news and in the universities in small increments over time? Not enough.
It stands to reason that if suffrage is a vital human right, it follows that there should be a mandate that the citizen have a healthy knowledge of each candidate. Not only should the citizen know that, but he should have a solid understanding of economics, history, and the political process. What percentage of the public is defined by these attributes?
The show Bates Motel has a relatively special significance to me. I identified a lot with the main character, Norman Bates. Aside from bearing a strong physical resemblance to Norman and being almost the same age as the actor who played him, I found myself not only wholly understanding the rationale behind the many murders that Norman committed, but I found myself championing his actions with alarming remorselessness. Not only that, but like Norman, I too deal with mental illness and the timeline of the show coincided with my own struggle and conquest of mental illness.
Furthermore, I wistfully associate this show with nostalgic memories. I remember when the show began in 2013, I met my then girlfriend in person for the first time. We first met in an eighth floor Holiday Inn hotel room that had dark wallpaper. The hotel room was divided into two sections: a large bedroom with a king sized bed and a separate living room with a couch and a TV. We watched TV in between bouts of energetic sexual play. She would curl up next to me on the couch as we watched, discussed and deconstructed not only Bates Motel but other shows as well.
Anyway, the fantastic writing on this show had me glued to the TV. As someone championing Norman along, you could say I was quite disappointed with the ending wherein he was killed. My ideal ending would have been seeing Norman in a cushioned cell in a straight jacket in a mental hospital at least alive and knowing that he would be forever blissfully content in the stupor induced by the medications the hospital staff would force him to take. After Norman killed Sheriff Romero and after imaginary Norma abandoned Norman, I was half hoping in that moment to see Norman entirely overcome his mental illness that plagued him for so long. I was half hoping he would run away and live out as a fugitive somewhere else in the United States, an ending which is not inconceivable given that pretty much all other loose ends on the show had been tied up. It was an opportunity for him to start over but when he drove Norma’s dead body back to his house in his car, I became distressed at the thought of the foreboding outcome. To be honest, my stomach filled with dread every time Norman killed someone or attacked someone knowing the likely horrible consequences for him. However, each time I was pleasantly surprised to find out that the universe had given him another chance afterward. I don’t think it was beyond the ability of the show’s writers to craft such an ending but alas, that was not the case. Nonetheless, I am appreciative that the show did at least culminate and end.
To conclude: as far as TV shows go, I must say that the bar is set unbelievably high. This was my favourite show on television.
A topic of discussion that floats around sometimes is religion and the belief in a deity. I thought I would give you my personal take on it. Does god exist? I believe he does. What is the definition of god? Well, according to the American heritage dictionary, it is “a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.” I believe there is an entity that has characteristics of what we define as god. If god doesn’t exist, I think there must be a being very similar to God.
Going back thousands of years and seeing many different peoples and nations around the world worship some form of deity, one might ask: could they all be wrong or are they on to something? What I believe is that gods of all different cultures are simply attempts at defining the same phenomenon, a phenomenon we do not yet fully understand. Our limited understanding, however, doesn’t mean that that entity we are trying to define doesn’t exist. Are billions of people throughout the world and throughout history all worshiping nothing at all? Now an atheist may argue that the majority of religious people are simply blind followers of their respective faiths simply because religion is something that is culturally encouraged in their region and that perhaps only a very small percentage of religious people are believers due to well thought-out reasoning.
I think, however, for billions of people around the world for thousands of years to have some sort of deity in their culture is saying something. It’s saying that humans are observing real phenomenon in the world that leads them to rationally believe that some form of god-like entity exists. Many religions contradict other religions, but that doesn’t mean that one religion is right and another is wrong. They could all be valid. Differences in religion are commensurate with the differences in various ethnic groups from which different religions originate.
Our perception is what makes the world around us real. To other animals like flies or snakes who perceive the world differently, what’s real for them is different than real for us. Is there one correct way to perceive the world way in the way that it naturally exists? I don’t think there is. This leads to the question: what is the true nature of the world?
As an example, when light hits hits an atom, the atom absorbs all of those electromagnetic wavelengths except for those wavelengths which are reflected, some of which we can see with our eyes. What about all of the wavelengths we can’t see? What if we could see them? Would it change our understanding of the world? We don’t see those invisible wavelengths because it has not been something required of humans by the imperative of survival. Survival is the only driving force that gives us our traits. In other words, all the traits we possess, we possess in order to survive. None of them are just luxuries.
My point here with wavelengths is that it’s a microcosm of the way we perceive reality in general: that it seems like human understanding perceives only a small sliver of all true phenomenon. There’s too much we don’t understand. This would point to the existence of a greater force, a greater power.