Let me tell you about something interesting that has happened to me lately.
I am a major fan of the Total War series of computer games. I bought Rome: Total War a long time ago and really liked it and have been hooked ever since. In it, you rule over provinces using military might, economic might, and political might--basically you're the king and your objective is to take over the world in whatever way you can. I like how you can engage in full scale battles--you see all of the soldiers, you control them like a real army (unlike those crappy strategy games where it's more like you're a band of heros taking on thousands) The latest edition is Shogun 2:Total War, and I LOVE IT.
Anyway...
The other day I got into a battle with someone who resides three (well 4, now) provinces away from me. We had several diplomatic relationships for quite a while--we even were allies for a long time, but then we stopped working together and I kinda faded into their background.
We got into a particular battle--you might could say it's still ongoing really, based on the circumstance--where I was on the high ground, in my castle, defending myself and they came to fight. --Except...instead of fighting they just stood there waiting and waiting without moving, without attacking.
I'm still waiting for them to move because I'm not going to leave where I have things good just to meet them for a pointless war. I would like to see us as allies again after all! But alas, I'm just waiting and waiting for this battle to commence or for them to leave or to re-ally themselves with me, but instead it's all just a bunch of waiting, wondering what's going to happen, when they'll make the first move, -if- they'll make a move or if it's all just fun and games for them to sit back and besiege me.
The unfortunate thing about this situation is that eventually you HAVE to leave your castle and fight--time runs out, food runs out, resources run out, patience runs out, etc. and you are slowly diminished every second that you stay besieged. So right now I'm slowly dwindling away waiting for them to make their move, and I don't see them moving any time soon. They are forcing ME to make a decision for them that they should have made a long time ago.
But, I'm not talking about games right now, am I? I'm not talking about Total War...
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Write
I feel like I need to write something.
I have had quite a stressful life this last week or two--Just imagine building up for a whole year to this point and then everything going wrong and you have to scramble to make it turn out--Well, I did. And it has turned out spectacular.
I find that I get pitfalls here and there in life. These pitfalls may slow me down, but I just keep charging forward. That is the only way I know to do things... When life tries to stop me, I try that much harder and I pull through.
Sometimes I wonder what my life would be like if I didn't have this attitude.--I know people who give up when things get hard, and THEIR lives seem to turn out as well...I mean, they're still alive? Somehow they make it work--or maybe they give up and wait a while and try again, I'm not sure which.
Anyway, I don't know why I am titling this post as "write"...I don't really talk about writing other than that I want to write something. --mleh.
I have had quite a stressful life this last week or two--Just imagine building up for a whole year to this point and then everything going wrong and you have to scramble to make it turn out--Well, I did. And it has turned out spectacular.
I find that I get pitfalls here and there in life. These pitfalls may slow me down, but I just keep charging forward. That is the only way I know to do things... When life tries to stop me, I try that much harder and I pull through.
Sometimes I wonder what my life would be like if I didn't have this attitude.--I know people who give up when things get hard, and THEIR lives seem to turn out as well...I mean, they're still alive? Somehow they make it work--or maybe they give up and wait a while and try again, I'm not sure which.
Anyway, I don't know why I am titling this post as "write"...I don't really talk about writing other than that I want to write something. --mleh.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Fears
I keep finding that all of my fears about life are rational ones and that it is good that I fear these things.
How do I know this? --I have experienced it for myself, and others who have had more experience than I have told me so.
If my ethos means anything to my readers, I hope that it means that you trust me because of my experiences. I can talk you through things, I can explain things, and I can only explain them because I have witnessed them. I don't write anything on here that I don't believe is true.
And that is the great mystery of scholars: truth isn't universally accepted and agreed upon--it's relative.
So although I may have these experiences, I may fear things, I may assume things from what knowledge that I have, at the end of the day this truth is only pertinent to me. You have to find your own version of the truth for yourself, even if you trust me, you still NEED to follow through and experiment on my logic--test it out.
I am not sure if this is true, but I believe most of you, my readers, are truth seekers who are well acquainted with the "test it out" method. --first you hear of an idea, then you try it for yourself, then if it dosen't work, you are hesitant to believe it. It is a fear of mine that those who study my works, whether verbal, written in this blog, in any of my blogs, in any of my poetry, in any of my books, in any of my films--my fear is that you will choose not to test it out. I may not know all of the "truth", and for that you shouldn't believe every word I say. And the antithesis is also true: I may actually know the truth, and you should believe me. But in both the scenarios, I think you should test it out for yourself.
I used to think I didn't fear anything.--that may be true in some senses--I don't fear the irrational. I don't fear things that are mythic, things like ghosts, zombies, super volcanos. these things I don't fear. But I do fear the rational: I fear that people, out of ignorance, will disrupt my world. I fear that society, in wickedness, will destroy the ways of God. I fear that you, my friends, will cease to see me as a friend, because I say 'hard" things. --I tell the truth as often as I can and for that I have lost many a friend and made many enemies.
But my fears are all counted by hope: I hope that society, although drifting into wicked ways, will spare the ways of God. I hope that people, although ignorant, will not be capable of disrupting my world, and I hope that you as my friends, will help me to come to the truth if ever I am false. I hope that you as my friends will not run away from me though I speak truth. I hope that you, as friends, will care enough about me to challenge me and check me on those things I fail at.
That is what I expect out of my friends: I expect my friends to be "loyal" or "loving" enough, that they'll stick up for what they have come to know is true, and that they will teach me their ways and we can come to compromise and share truth freely. That is what a friend is to me.
How do I know this? --I have experienced it for myself, and others who have had more experience than I have told me so.
If my ethos means anything to my readers, I hope that it means that you trust me because of my experiences. I can talk you through things, I can explain things, and I can only explain them because I have witnessed them. I don't write anything on here that I don't believe is true.
And that is the great mystery of scholars: truth isn't universally accepted and agreed upon--it's relative.
So although I may have these experiences, I may fear things, I may assume things from what knowledge that I have, at the end of the day this truth is only pertinent to me. You have to find your own version of the truth for yourself, even if you trust me, you still NEED to follow through and experiment on my logic--test it out.
I am not sure if this is true, but I believe most of you, my readers, are truth seekers who are well acquainted with the "test it out" method. --first you hear of an idea, then you try it for yourself, then if it dosen't work, you are hesitant to believe it. It is a fear of mine that those who study my works, whether verbal, written in this blog, in any of my blogs, in any of my poetry, in any of my books, in any of my films--my fear is that you will choose not to test it out. I may not know all of the "truth", and for that you shouldn't believe every word I say. And the antithesis is also true: I may actually know the truth, and you should believe me. But in both the scenarios, I think you should test it out for yourself.
I used to think I didn't fear anything.--that may be true in some senses--I don't fear the irrational. I don't fear things that are mythic, things like ghosts, zombies, super volcanos. these things I don't fear. But I do fear the rational: I fear that people, out of ignorance, will disrupt my world. I fear that society, in wickedness, will destroy the ways of God. I fear that you, my friends, will cease to see me as a friend, because I say 'hard" things. --I tell the truth as often as I can and for that I have lost many a friend and made many enemies.
But my fears are all counted by hope: I hope that society, although drifting into wicked ways, will spare the ways of God. I hope that people, although ignorant, will not be capable of disrupting my world, and I hope that you as my friends, will help me to come to the truth if ever I am false. I hope that you as my friends will not run away from me though I speak truth. I hope that you, as friends, will care enough about me to challenge me and check me on those things I fail at.
That is what I expect out of my friends: I expect my friends to be "loyal" or "loving" enough, that they'll stick up for what they have come to know is true, and that they will teach me their ways and we can come to compromise and share truth freely. That is what a friend is to me.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Haves and Nots
I'm not a full believer in the social theory that we are divided into classes, upper, middle, and lower. I think there are a few truths that come out of practicing that theory, but I don't think it is shaped enough to really say that there are classes and that these classes are in competition with one another and all those other assumptions and theories behind it all.
Sure, anyone can say that there are DIVISIONS in society. You can make up any boundary that you want and gerrymander the lines to fit into your theory, but that doesn't mean that it is a natural occurrence.
Anyway, I do somewhat agree that there are the "haves" and the "have nots"-- most social-conflict theorists believe that these are the upper and the lower class, and that the middle class bridges them and that some middle class people raise in class, others fall, but the middle is just kinda in the middle (that's how they explain it). They have enough, they don't control the means of production, but they aren't victims of it either.
The thing about this theory is that it is believed that the upper class oppresses and supresses the lower class, takes advantage of them, and that is why the upper class 'has' and the lower class 'has not'.--because they were cheated, they got less than their share and others got more than their share.
The problem I see is that the assumption is that we are all equal, and so they thing that the middle got just right, the upper got too much, and the lower got too little, therefore 'take from the upper, give to the lower'.
But the more I look at this complex situation, the more I see it as reverse from that:
The upper worked for everything they received, either from inheritance (their parents or grandparents or somewhere along the line worked for it) or from actual work (many wealthy business entrepreneurs risk everything to gain everything--many of them are from the lower class). The poor, or the lower class, it appears to me the more I ponder on this, is the group that takes advantage of the wealthy. Poor these days means living on welfare--living on someone else's work. It seems to me that the lower class is piggybacking off of the upper class. They expect to be equal--from birth. But we are not born equal, nor should we be born equals. We each are given what we are given for our own good. Some people aren't born rich because they can't handle it. Others are born rich because they can't handle being poor. Some are born poor so that they can have greater gains and victories when they overcome the world, others are born rich so that they have the means to do much good.
--I think God sends us into this life with precisely what we need. Nothing more, nothing less. We are then instructed to make the best of it and given EQUAL potential. It is that potential that allows some to work till they are wealthy, and to live a good life, have a family, and be happy. Others do not tap their full potential. They look for the easy way out of things. They choose not to obtain wealth, live a good life, and or be happy. Yes, happy. You choose to be happy and though some people may have less initial capacity to be happy, they have the potential to be just as happy as anyone else.
Sure, anyone can say that there are DIVISIONS in society. You can make up any boundary that you want and gerrymander the lines to fit into your theory, but that doesn't mean that it is a natural occurrence.
Anyway, I do somewhat agree that there are the "haves" and the "have nots"-- most social-conflict theorists believe that these are the upper and the lower class, and that the middle class bridges them and that some middle class people raise in class, others fall, but the middle is just kinda in the middle (that's how they explain it). They have enough, they don't control the means of production, but they aren't victims of it either.
The thing about this theory is that it is believed that the upper class oppresses and supresses the lower class, takes advantage of them, and that is why the upper class 'has' and the lower class 'has not'.--because they were cheated, they got less than their share and others got more than their share.
The problem I see is that the assumption is that we are all equal, and so they thing that the middle got just right, the upper got too much, and the lower got too little, therefore 'take from the upper, give to the lower'.
But the more I look at this complex situation, the more I see it as reverse from that:
The upper worked for everything they received, either from inheritance (their parents or grandparents or somewhere along the line worked for it) or from actual work (many wealthy business entrepreneurs risk everything to gain everything--many of them are from the lower class). The poor, or the lower class, it appears to me the more I ponder on this, is the group that takes advantage of the wealthy. Poor these days means living on welfare--living on someone else's work. It seems to me that the lower class is piggybacking off of the upper class. They expect to be equal--from birth. But we are not born equal, nor should we be born equals. We each are given what we are given for our own good. Some people aren't born rich because they can't handle it. Others are born rich because they can't handle being poor. Some are born poor so that they can have greater gains and victories when they overcome the world, others are born rich so that they have the means to do much good.
--I think God sends us into this life with precisely what we need. Nothing more, nothing less. We are then instructed to make the best of it and given EQUAL potential. It is that potential that allows some to work till they are wealthy, and to live a good life, have a family, and be happy. Others do not tap their full potential. They look for the easy way out of things. They choose not to obtain wealth, live a good life, and or be happy. Yes, happy. You choose to be happy and though some people may have less initial capacity to be happy, they have the potential to be just as happy as anyone else.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Do it yourself
I've always been a fan of books that teach you how to do things on your own. I think the first one of these I encountered was the Idiots Guide to Spanish, or something like that. Unfortunately, it didn't help me learn Spanish, but it exposed me to a world where I could learn things from books and not have to take a class in it. Next came a book on how to build robots (oh, the things little kids take an interest in)...that book, I DID learn a few things about electronics and simple machines, and a general understanding of the goal of robotics. It is almost as if I were taking robotics 101--this was back in elementary school. I used to lug these books into class during reading time and whip them out when I got bored (which was frequently) or when I was forced to read something during reading time. I still have a few of the robotics books that I had back then...if I only comprehended them as I could now if I read them...I'd probably be well into an engineering life by now.
Next came C++...my brother had a book on the shelf just dying to be read, and I thought: hmmm, video games are cool, people who program video games use C and C++...I should learn that. So I tried to. I think I programmed a few things but I've forgotten it now. After that was perl, which I still kinda know, along with the HTML I learned from online websites.
Now days I am amassing a collection of books related to the film industry, from how to run in the buisness to writing screenplays, directing, cinematography, VFX etc. etc. I've found that I need to stick to a specific subject until I can say I have mastered it before I pitch out more money into other fields. (gotta make money in my first choice before I can pay back the cost of these books and get on to a new subject!)
What I think I wanted that story to lead into is that life is solely about making choices and doing things for yourself. Movies THRIVE off of them. Name any of the greatest films of all time and you'll discover that the hero reaches a point where they have to do things for themselves in order to solve the big "problem". All of the mentors disappear, all of the sidekicks and lovers are thrown out of the picture temporarily, and it's up to the hero to do things on their own. That's what we go to movies for is to see that happen.
So my point is, with how much our conscious and subconscious LOVES doing things, we ought to also all realize that we NEED to do things ourselves. A wasted life is one in which the person doesn't do anything. They don't change, they don't solve problems, they don't recognize problems, they don't do anything but stay stagnant. I think the same could be said about a day: a day is wasted when nothing happens in it. If at the end of the day you don't feel like anything is different from the previous day, then what are you doing? If you go to work, make money, spend that money (in increments) on the food you eat for the day, the games you play for the day, the house you live in, etc. And you eat, play, and sleep, then WHAT DID YOU DO FOR THE DAY?
If you aren't making any progress towards your goals, if you don't have goals, if you don't change up your schedule, or you are unsatisfied with the things that transpired in the day, then what did you do for the day?
It's interesting to talk to (creative) writers because most have experienced a point in one of their stories where their main character is just flat. He's stagnant. He stinks. And they dont want to go back and rewrite anything to make him interesting. No one likes this guy, he might be perfect or might be perfectly evil (and therefore full of conflict) but if he doesn't make any kind of change, people feel dissatisfied when the story ends.
People in real life do it too, but unlike in stories, there is only a few people watching their life (aka. their story). They are the people closest to us, and most importantly, ourselves. We can feel like we are boring, and useless, and dull, and uninteresting, and these thoughts can really bring down our self worth. It's a shame too, because all the individual needs to do to pull out of it is to seek to make changes in their daily life: to improve on themselves, or their lifestyle, to mix things up, go a different road home, try something new, etc.
"Do it yourself" is a good saying. We each have to do things for ourselves, and the only person who can change YOU is You. Not your mentors, not your protege's not your friends or family. But you.
Next came C++...my brother had a book on the shelf just dying to be read, and I thought: hmmm, video games are cool, people who program video games use C and C++...I should learn that. So I tried to. I think I programmed a few things but I've forgotten it now. After that was perl, which I still kinda know, along with the HTML I learned from online websites.
Now days I am amassing a collection of books related to the film industry, from how to run in the buisness to writing screenplays, directing, cinematography, VFX etc. etc. I've found that I need to stick to a specific subject until I can say I have mastered it before I pitch out more money into other fields. (gotta make money in my first choice before I can pay back the cost of these books and get on to a new subject!)
What I think I wanted that story to lead into is that life is solely about making choices and doing things for yourself. Movies THRIVE off of them. Name any of the greatest films of all time and you'll discover that the hero reaches a point where they have to do things for themselves in order to solve the big "problem". All of the mentors disappear, all of the sidekicks and lovers are thrown out of the picture temporarily, and it's up to the hero to do things on their own. That's what we go to movies for is to see that happen.
So my point is, with how much our conscious and subconscious LOVES doing things, we ought to also all realize that we NEED to do things ourselves. A wasted life is one in which the person doesn't do anything. They don't change, they don't solve problems, they don't recognize problems, they don't do anything but stay stagnant. I think the same could be said about a day: a day is wasted when nothing happens in it. If at the end of the day you don't feel like anything is different from the previous day, then what are you doing? If you go to work, make money, spend that money (in increments) on the food you eat for the day, the games you play for the day, the house you live in, etc. And you eat, play, and sleep, then WHAT DID YOU DO FOR THE DAY?
If you aren't making any progress towards your goals, if you don't have goals, if you don't change up your schedule, or you are unsatisfied with the things that transpired in the day, then what did you do for the day?
It's interesting to talk to (creative) writers because most have experienced a point in one of their stories where their main character is just flat. He's stagnant. He stinks. And they dont want to go back and rewrite anything to make him interesting. No one likes this guy, he might be perfect or might be perfectly evil (and therefore full of conflict) but if he doesn't make any kind of change, people feel dissatisfied when the story ends.
People in real life do it too, but unlike in stories, there is only a few people watching their life (aka. their story). They are the people closest to us, and most importantly, ourselves. We can feel like we are boring, and useless, and dull, and uninteresting, and these thoughts can really bring down our self worth. It's a shame too, because all the individual needs to do to pull out of it is to seek to make changes in their daily life: to improve on themselves, or their lifestyle, to mix things up, go a different road home, try something new, etc.
"Do it yourself" is a good saying. We each have to do things for ourselves, and the only person who can change YOU is You. Not your mentors, not your protege's not your friends or family. But you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)