To Draw What's On

Street Scene in Montmartre: Le Moulin de Poivre (van Gogh, 1887)

"They walked on, without knowing in what direction. There was too much to be thought, and felt, and said, for attention to any other objects."

Pride and Prejudice, Chapter 58.

Read more...

That Would Be A Good Title

Celine:

Memory is a wonderful thing, if you don't have to, uh, deal with the past.

Jesse:

"Memory is a wonderful thing, if you don't have to deal with the past." Can I put that on a bumper sticker?

(Before Sunset, 2004)

Read more...

A Glimpse of Holding Constant Our Own Value Judgement

So the World Development Report 2012 is out! We can download it for free here.

Despite its holding issue and I know that changes remain possible in every part of our life, I'm just thrilled as it lends a hand on me to keep in faith at least. Coincidence? Pretty much. Every so often a coincidence comes up when we play around only to that vicinity, right? So it may be not that "real coincidence". But further question is, is that wrong? To jump over only to the freshwater rather than the saltwater lake in finding a trout. Though we aimed not to find a huge seatrout after all.

And I have to put aside all my previous judgements on this required completion of study. So please guide me to play in a positive check, not a normative one. For months or years ahead.

Last night, I just had a talk with a friend. We agreed to be disagreed and we didn't insist to joint when it just didn't have to because actually it was mutual in sharing and that went without saying. It was all about tolerance and we chatted about that as well.

Tolerance. How do we handle with that? Is this the thing that we need or is this a normative side of our behavior? At times I think, is there any impact of one's behavior to another one's behavior? I mean (to give a context), do surroundings widely determine on how we act?

Genuinely I am fascinated by the work of permisiveness; how could a smoker befriend with the one who don't smoke at all? How a drinker may sit and sip a glass of white Russian in front of the one who drink a mock of cocktail. How about the drug users, do they leave a friend who doesn't do any drugs behind? Do they stop talking with a friend who refuses their invitation to go clubbing at places somewhere over the city lights? Do we start to avoid an atheist? Do we laugh at people's faces when we hear they simply want to do a pray of any given religion that they keep in heart? Do we leave a space to people who (un)decide a marriage or an affair?

Do we provoke others to dislike people who don't walk in the same pathway of mind or people who don't stand in the same circle with us?

Yes, it is all about tolerance. Empathy, acceptance, understanding, or any sensible term we want to include. And again, it's in different context if we wish for locating our own value judgement inside.

This is an apology of having too much questions. Sorry for being a bit neurotic at this time, unless that there's always time-inconsistency (when we put a matter of time in such variable) but it's been so often for me to throw many question marks and become a little bit annoying to ask for longer when I can't meet the expense of any statement. Hence never stop asking, there's no such a sure thing and I just thought that we're living in an indefinite world, aren't we?

Read more...

Most Conflicts We Have Actually Based On Its Substances

Weird is, he who creates it he who blames on it. Many would deem it's stupid, but defining words requires more efforts to feel and to go beyond into chords.

We're too often trapped in a conflict with fewer solutions and it has lessened its chance to be solved. Like a moderator failing to pull the final wrap-ups, the debate is based on an equivalent context that doesn't exist. Some insist from the word of "d" and "e", some try to identify "fi" and "nit", and some how to unlock the suffix of "ion". How could the conflict's solution fail when the debate is so beautifully orchestrated from each perspective?

It may because they have gone too far from an endeavor to define the "definition" itself.

Somehow there's innocence within a stupidity, and there's political aspect inside a weirdness. We can't afford to pay attention on these both and to compare them each other since they are derived from a different context. We can actually, but it's just better not.

Read more...