When Mood and Nature Converse

a song finds its way to communicate with the dormant subconscious- Johnette Napolitano's cover of The Scientist. in the private corner of your sky, the blue silences all other colours, save the white of the clouds and the rainbow in your mind. and then u come to notice the idyllic rearrangement of the clouds according to the random rhythms of the wind and the refusal of the minority streaks rebelliously dancing to their own waltz, creating their own piece of art. the sun spares its mercy of heat and yellow, without which there would be an icicle of distance and space. the burden of your lightness keeps you earthed as you yearn to make a flight of guilty freedom. the unclear manifest of emotional standing of the song then captures your conscious attention for that temporal while, sketching the already-illumined mental postcard on a larger splash of canvas and there you stand deciding if this should be a transparently happy moment or delve into the deepest reflections of melancholy. and there i stood agaped, soothed in the science of the interaction of the conscious and subconscious and the concoction of foggy reality, seamless with this acute sense of pathetic fallacy.

take a moment to feel glad to be alive.

Feminism: The Complete Rationalization of the Demise of Chivalry

i've heard, several of late, of many complaints about how men nowadays are less chivalrous and less inclined to be of a gentleman to fellow ladies: the economising of manners on the womanfolk. and i've also heard how the situation used to be that men change after they get married, all for the worst- with the slipping on the wedding ring, comes the slipping off of romanticism and sensitivity that used to be so familiar and in abundance. i'm obviously in danger of exploding the minefields of over-generalisation but hey, i'm a mere social critic, i serve the perpetuators, am never the perpetuator.

and to that observation, to my kind and genteel womanfolk all around, i present to you a foolproof (albeit not a tonguelash-proof) and complete rationale to this supposed demise of chivalry: the advent of feminism. go stone catherine mckinnon and the likes over this but it's truly your own undoing (or doing, depending on what levels of finger-pointing you want to attribute). see a large component of this should-be-scraped school of thought is the hallmark of equality: what men can do, women can too. yes yes, all hail the woman-might and what-nots you have to prove that you can always do it better than the men can but think about footing the bill next time, holding the door for yourself, driving yourself around without the human-map guide(male of course) next to you and do all the cleaning yourself- well, the woman might can conquer all! so don't complain of chivalry not having a place in our modern times and reminiscing its once ubiquitous presence like you always had it. male chivalry is long taken for granted and for feminists to come up and proclaim that opening doors for the female species is a form of gender belittling and assumption of weakness on the male species' part, you gotta give the men a break. you simply can't be the murderer and cry murder at the same time. and u also can't have your cake and eat it. and if feminists really want to start rationalising chivalry, just strike it down as being antithetical to the propogation of feminism and gamely throw it out of the window, don't still stand around and say that that's just within a man to do it. so i give to you that feminism has itself to blame for a lot of things women want most and lost them through their 'cause'.

to think someone actually gave me a rationalization upon the rationalization of feminism by purporting that women in want of rich husbands still runs atrack with feminist thinking since one should see the woman as the queen bee and the male as the worker bee bringing her deserved honey to her. if ever i want to do that to some dudette, i'm doing it out of the goodness and love of my heart and not the recognition of any superiority of any gender, and of course the recognition that i am obviously the one with the apts of bringing in more money so live with it. all i can say to that 'theory' is, you gotta hand it to some women, man.

you really think virginia woolf was a staunch feminist? in the lunacy of her being, how could she still be able to propound her feminist ideals if not for Leonard Woolf, seriously.

Lucidity of Transcendence

i was pondering over something that spilled from a conversation that had me enthralled for a while: can u actually force someone to keep in touch with you? inane and ridiculous as it sounds it somehow kept the mills of my grey matter running for that bit. and larger issues then followed (the cursed legal train of thinking) like say if one could actually cope with a friend's way of handling matters when it directly clashes with your ideology of sorting things out?and when it does do u try reconciling or stand by your philosophy because you maintain who you are and thus trash things out? people at the bottom of it all do have different ways of dealing with things but when cosmic forces come clashing, is it time to throw out the big bang theory?

i'm often afraid to pose questions of existence or relational questions really. i'm in the belief that they are meant to rhetorical or worse yet, meant to brew nerve troubles. but more often than not when these existential queries present themselves to be that ugly reality we are so keen just to avoid, we often demand hard and fast answers, hoping they would translate themselves into workable solutions that will send these realities flying out of the door. yes, life is also more often than not, never this simple. i had a few of these practicable scenarios of my own. not pleasant of course but when it turns inwards, a self-improving individual might be glad that these things do come up. i'm not sure if it's called coming to terms with things but at least i know knots are being untied. caring too much can do heinous things too. people have different value systems, people have different methods to face up to things that come their way and they don't necessarily have to be in tuned with what you believe in. if they don't come together and say hi, i should let it fly.

i was about to say relationships should be easy, but i stop and thought that blood baths were started just because two individuals in power didn't get along: bush-saddam; mary of scots-elizabeth I, etc. and it's worse when things are so lucid i'm beginning to stop thinking about it. when that happens, indifference is born and degeneration is almost bound to mutate out of that. see, wherever i move is a plunge downwards.

on a much lighter note (or not cos the food consumed is quite the tonnage), i brought mummy dearest on 'her day' (Mother's Day) to Jade@Fullerton. Let's just say we had little piece of heaven on a large piece of my wallet. but all in good stride.

but to end this, questions of life are better left neigh-answered, ain't that the saner route out?