Writer's Block

The Great Gatsby and Iron Man

We've all heard the voices, which are wildly against adaptations and reboots but why can't we just appreciate cinema and enjoy it? And yes, it's often rubbish...

Others' fears are suspiciously often irrational, while ours are, suspiciously again, always justified.

I am the midnight of a soul I’m the other side of the wall The fissure between the tops Ever-hunted blood-red fox I am the glimpse of a thought I’m the wave broken by rocks A mystery of nothing Trapped, caught by snares whilst hunting I am the smoke of a burnt-out candle The smell of night The sight of blinds I am the broken glass’ torn-down handle The weight of light The might of fright But dawn follows the night I’ll enjoy an eagle’s flight And I already know Why I wait tomorrow

(via bernatk)

I got that same feel now, more than a year after writing this, though nothing's the same really ... #revival

Sherlock's Wisdom on Getting Married

I quite recently watched a Sherlock episode, titled: The Sign of Three. It was, in my sincere opinion, a relief after the surprisingly disappointing season premier--and I haven't watched the season finale, so please don't spoil that for me.

In this episode, besides of a number of complicated and smartly intertwined cases being solved by Sherlock, Dr. Watson gets married. Well, marriage is and has now been for a pretty good while a sensitive and controversial subject and no one blog entry could contain the expression of the complete set of my views on this topic, so I'll just reflect on one thing.

As Sherlock prepares for his awkward and unromantic best man speech, he points out a flaw in the institution of marriage. He says, that a wedding is not a big day, since two adults, who already live in the same household, will merely continue their relationship, without any addition or alternation in regards of form or content, just implementing a brief intermission consisting of a grand celebration and a short vacation.

Sherlock's argument against marriage is, however, not, that it should be done differently but that it shouldn't be done at all, having understood the little relevance it has. Of course we discard this argument as a trivial mistake. We feel this way because the essence of marriage and what it constitutes are unuttured but very valuable things.

The essence of marriage is problem #1. Out of all the definitions I've heard in my short life, the most easily acceptable and most up-to-date is this: a union between two willing adults, sanctified by the state, promoting romantic values. This is fairly true to popular contemporary views I believe.

On to problem #2: what does marriage constitute? To answer this question, we will now draw consequences about our answer to problem #1. Marriage essentially constitutes a state, in which the participants have their relationship recognized by the state and their pursue of romantic goals is hence justified.

I will now try to contradict my previous statements and conclusions by explaining faults I believe to have identified.

Fault #1: the state's sanctification is inadequate. I will demonstrate this by one argument but I believe even more exist. My example is this: take a christian couple. They get married and according to their beliefs their marriage was sanctified not solely by the state but also by God. If we define marriage as a thing getting its sanctification by the state we have disrespected and at least the way the given couple sees it, degraded their marriage. On the contrary, it would be problematic to change the definition in their favor because that would be misfit for the people not sharing christian faith.

Fault #2: in case marriage essentially promotes romantic values, such as romantic love, fidelity, companionship and such ones, it must mark the distinction between the state of promotion and the state, where these values were not promoted or not in the same manner. This means, that, for instance, before the marriage you have the liberty to break up the relationship you have, however, after you're married, you willingly give this up and thus will never have the freedom to get a divorce. Of course this seems extremely orthodox and hard to accept but given the definition above, the state of marriage does not allow you to violate the institution of it.

The list of problems and faults may be too short or inaccurate in contrast with others' views but I believe it's quite enough food for thought for now.

Both faults, listed above, originate from how we define the essence of marriage and what we want it to constitute. Now, that I have questioned and denied the modern day thinking about this topic, it may seem, that I agree with Sherlock and see marriage as an irrelevant contingency in life but that's not the case either. What I personally think about it is, that as long as we don't have a unanimous definition of marriage, we can't make court rulings or legislations defining its aims, since no matter how liberal we are, it will always take away the freedom of at least a few. And to give my view on what to make of the current problem, I will say, that marriage is valuable and it should continue to exist, however, to fill it with importance, contemporary thinking about it should indeed be changed.

Yay! Pop-art!

Someone saw this picture being the wallpaper of my phone and just said: "Yeah, but he actually isn't." That is a misunderstanding.

Descartes identified something self-evident in this statement. If I think, then it cannot be that I do not exist--to put it differently. But then, we can see that the man on the picture is really not there. His place is indicated but he's absent. However, that's the point: it is possible for everything to not be as it is, yet, as long as I think, I exist. And there's obviously no need to prove that because it's a trivial truth. If the man thinks, his existence cannot be doubted, even when it would seem that he doesn't exist.

But there's more!

Granted that if I think, then I am, everything else is contingent. And this image is smartly implying that regardless of the appearances, if and as long as I think, I am.

St. Thomas Acquinas said that everything is perfect that is. It is so because perfection is the most or ultimately desired state of a being. And for every being the most desirable is to be, ergo when something is, then it is perfect. But that perfection stands only inasmuch as something exists. Which means that every human being is a perfect human being.

What's not so easy to see in this, is that while every human being is a perfect human being, it applies only to their beings. So it's easy to understand that every person, not depending on their skin color or culture or language, realizes in their existence the perfection of human existence, that only leads to the conclusion that only in the fact that people exist are they perfect. That means that their actions may be imperfect, just the same, and that would not invalidate the thesis that they are perfect.

In summary, every human being, just because they are, realize the perfection that can describe a human being. So there are no inferior and superior people. Equality is thus, by the nature of things, granted, and any inequality, originating in the imperfection of one, is an illusion. However, that does in no way lead us to the conclusion that the content of any being is perfect. It is false romanticizing and a logical fallacy. Equality is naturally given because everybody fulfils the perfection conveyed in human existence but that is exactly how far equality can be talked of and anything beyond that line will not really be in relation to equality.

I'm glad that even as simple as a wallpaper can have meaning.

Steam rising from the bed of the Waimakariri River in New Zealand, 1946. (George Silk—The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images) #newzealand

major choices in life in a nutshell

And that taught me you can’t have anything, you can’t have anything at all. Because desire just cheats you. It’s like a sunbeam skipping here and there about a room. It stops and gilds some inconsequential object, and we poor fools try to grasp it—but when we do the sunbeam moves on to something else, and you’ve got the inconsequential part, but the glitter that made you want it is gone.

F Scott Fitzgerald - The Beautiful and Damned

Querying

I finished my novel a couple months back and have been on and off the polishing business. But this week (ending today) I have finally arrived at the point of sending it to literary agents. It is an exhilarating and unnerving moment at the same time because I’m young, inexperienced and most of all, a terrible self-selling man. I hold it to be a huge injustice against artists, looking for representation, that they have to be able to promote themselves, market themselves because all through history it’s been common sense that they are the most shy, introverted people. Well, I’m not the typical introverted person but I still don’t like talking about what I’ve written. I like writing it fine, even discussing it but not like a used car salesman, who’s trying to point out why a wreck is still something to be wanted. Anyway, it’s beside the point--it would be if I had a point. I guess I’m just trying to get some feelings out of my system. I genuinely love the period of writing and creating but now I feel like an alien, who’s destined to fail, though I hope I’m destined to succeed but my emotions are hard to control. But now, off to bed, off to sweet dreams.