The hegemony of the Lobster

Last night I watched ‘The Lobster’, a movie directed by Yorgos Lanthimos about a dystopia where everyone has tohave a partner, if you fail to have a partner you are taken outside the community into a hotel where you have 45 days to find a new partner or else you are turned into an animal of your choice. Meanwhile there is a community of loners who have ran away from the system and created their own institution which forbids relationships on any level.

So we have two institutions  (both interestingly run by women) one which imposes partnership (lets call it institution A) and another which forbids it (and this one Institution B). They are both a part of a larger institution which created this categorized system where one falls from one category to the other, within an ‘either or’ scenario.

Not only is the idea of the ultimate importance of partnership hegemonized in institution A, within this institution one can find a wide range of categories that one can not escape, for example you can only be heterosexual or homosexual, and they deleted the category of Bisexual last summer. Much like the categories on Facebook where one has to fit a certain category of sexuality on their profile rather than just allowing sexual fluidity away from pre-fixed categories. On the other hand, this institution keeps on re-enforcing its concepts through daily shows that demonstrate the importance of partnership and the dangers of its absence, and through physical exercise like living a day with one hand only.

The docility of the characters is very well incorporated in the movie, especially in the main character (role by Collin Farrel)’s way of talking and reactions to every day life, its as if the charterer know that he is acting as a part of a larger institution in a covertly comic manner. Generally we can notice the docility in the other characters through their pre-fixed attitudes, outbursts of violence, unconscious dedication to the ideas of the institution for example: one loves another who has the same defining characteristic as them, since they are all docile bodies the only way to tell them apart is through such shallow traits, like we both suffer from frequent nose bleeds, we are both short sighted. this criterion is deeply innate in the people of this society so much that even the main characters who fail at first to fit within any of the two categories can not escape this notion of surface traits which determine how well suited you are to each other, in fact the main characters are not challenging the institution at all, they are simply two people functioning within an institution hoping to survive. Basing relationships on traits is much like dating applications such as tender, nowadays where one can chose a date based on measurable traits that one is reduced to.

In the movie, for the couple to further enrich their relationship,  a vacation on an Island in Europe or somewhere exotic is recommended, or assigning a child to the couple so their arguments will cease. this portrait of a couple’s romantic vacation is so innate in our minds to a point where they are going to the dream vacation just to draw that consumer driven portrait. and objectify themselves through social media.

There is a significance to the fact that everyone is always assigned the same clothes, as if the director wants to insure that the audience have a tangible evidence demonstrating how institution hegemonize few modes of personalities till we are pretty much very similar. 

Another subject that is noticeable in the movie is the christian family framework, where the family is considered the heart of the society, and any other structure is out of question.

Institution B is in fact an effect of institution A , interestingly, you can pinpoint how both institutions are actually two sides of the same coin. for example in institution B one can not dance with a partner but puts her/his own headphone and dances whenever there is a celebration, even if you danced with a partner in institution A you would feel equally disconnected, hence the effect of the first institution is producing the same docility. This disconnection is shown very clearly when the power relations between the two institutions start to change, and the loners  of institution B challenge the husband of the hotel owner ( technically the leader of Institution A) to shoot her in return for his life, and he does pull the trigger however the gun was empty. So institution B demonstrates the failure of institution A, and yet at this moment of discourse it reinforces the same model of institutionalization.

The enforced study of western Humanities

So I was trying to watch a politics and morals class from Yale university online today, I have been considering a masters in law and politics, thought this would give me an idea.
The lecturer started the echimann problem, another case study about the holocust, reading half of the assigned reading I got bored, and watched the class. His whole point was that some countries might do illegal things yet they might be legitimate. Hooray to to the death of neutral education, and such a grand intro to politics. His other point was that criminals are normal people like us. I am not entering the idea of how double sided politicians are which is something I deeply despise.
The idea that killed me is the obvious lack of neutrality in all the online courses I am taking from US universities. A while ago while reading a book on the history of economics the writer said that one of the most important factors for the rise of neoliberism is that it was taught to students in universities. They teach you history economics and law just as they are. And seeing that you have no prior knowledge of the subject how on earth are you going to develop a different point of view. This is what is Happening with worldwide high education, especially in the field of humanities, if you get a masters in philosophy you can only find a good education in the university that would only teach u western philosophy. First world countries offer education to the world but at a very high prize, for example in another online course the only arguments about the paradoxes of war in one subject are only about World War I and II even though the course’s title is general. 
Education and intellectuality around the world are being controlled by first world scholars that show you only the western point of view, and the world only accepts you with that education. I don’t want to be a prisoner of western thought and philosophy and my dilemma rests at that exact point. The Mexican Ocatavio Paz said ‘we (The third world) never had a Kant, a Voltaire, a Diderot, or a hume’ the 21 century was imposed on the third world when it was not ready for it, coming from a society that never had the chance to grow, the least one can do is to never forget that every word said is up for critical arguments. Learn from them but never be them. Cheers to the beautiful nations of the third world.

God hears a who

At a moment, god let go of all souls, each for a point in space and time, people of the past do not have older souls, our souls were not waiting for the past couple of thousand years to come here, we were all created together, in a dimension with no time, past or present. For that we do not reincarnate when we die, we join the second at which every soul on earth goes back home.

Most of the history of humanity was spent traveling around earth hunting, I find myself deeply mesmerized by the idea of farming all of the sudden, like animals all we really needed to survive is food, and if it were not for our ability to over produce food, we would have never evolved, how did we think to put stuff in the land to make it grow ( it is interesting to know that farming started in the fertile crescent), and how after farming all the genetic differences that were created by traveling somehow became settled  and each area began formulating it is own identity, because of farming land started to matter to people, because we started exploiting land, we started defending it. Now that farming is not the basis of our society we are somehow going back to traveling around earth and losing our ties with earth, more travel means more genetic mixing, take in for example the mixed genetic backgrounds of latin americans. On any case back to the past it is as if a human is as developed as the input you insert into him as he grows, and just like that we evolved very fast after. Looking at the small numbers of human beings that lived on earth in the past and the huge numbers of humans living now, I must say that a big part of human souls are living in modern times, hence if we want to look at history not from a timeline, but how much did every human experience, you would see that most of human history is happening at the moment, right now. it is as if 7 billion souls were thrown into the pool of the 21 century while only very few we thrown into the year 400 BC.

The idea of can a new soul take in all the large input created by the so called past souls, this image remind me of genie, the documentary about a girl who was locked up all her childhood then introduced to learning.

In the times of the Egyptian Ptolemy, he believed that earth is the center of the universe, back then it is estimated that the population of earth was 190 million people. Ptolemy’s belief continued on till the 18th century when the population of earth was around 1 billion people, it is believed that after discovering that earth is just a small planet amongst countless others in a galaxy that also is amongst other galaxies, this mere fact was a source of astonishment to many philosophers amongst them was Goethe who wrote about the emptiness he felt knowing that existence is limitless. This astronomical fact rever-beated  in human’s perception on the importance of societies.

We suddenly realized that we are so truly small yet, problem is a lot happened after the 18 century, from revolutions, colonization, science, philosophy, the bigger our minds got, the more developed humanity is the smaller we are compared to the scale of the universe, problem is I do not get what god is trying to tell us through this, the more we discover that more life seems abstract, I forgot who said it, but someone once said that a good invention always sounds like magic at the beginning, and that is the thing, the more we are puzzled the more we drift further away from the essence of humanity. Bigger brains yet smaller roles, reminds me of growing old, wiser mind yet older body.

A suggested video on the matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy2XJMczUNc

الطبيعة تهذب الطبائع

Book review attempt #1 Event: A philosophical Journey through a concept – Slavoj Zizek

I have been on very few trains in my life so far, hence while imagining this book, for some reason I imagined I was on the train to cat town in Haruki murakami’s novel 1Q84. On any case it was an exhilarating journey, While never truly knowing what zizek is implying at, at the end of each chapter a tiny shiver of cheer goes through the reader for now it all makes sense. Zizek refers to this alignment of thoughts to make sense in the pool of ideas he throws the reader into.which is why I tend to love his books yet hate them as well. On any case zizek is jumping from an example to another allowing the reader to embrace many different aspects of philosophy, morality, politics, psychology, and ‘so on’,  for while having your brain itching all the while you are reading, you sink too often. Responding to zizek’s command ‘Nota bene’ I write the following.

Event, ‘what is really happening when something happens’ the gap between the event and its effect

Note: Following is my own attempt and truly ironically short to review and understand the concepts mentioned in the book, each of these of these concept might be explored, or might have been explored by the author in a whole different manner.

Stop 1: Framing and reframing – Humans and events

Zizek starts with the concept of framing,  the relationship between an event and reality, this chapter is mostly set on man’s point of view of any event. simply setting a gap between the event and our realization of its truth, by setting numerous examples from movies, books and plays on how each event is never separated from the whole life, and the rather philosophical concept of each human perceiving her/his own version of reality.

Stop 2: The blessed fall – The event that started history

How an event could be a radical change in reality itself. Zizek explores the two opposites when they represent each other, yet one leads to the other, ex: innocence as the original sin. the literal imbalance in solitude to attain company. and his major example is in ‘adam’s fall so that jesus may come down to earth and dispense salvation. it is also related of how some protesters in some post colonial countries are demanding their ‘identity’ back while they never truly attained it in the past.

Stop 3: Buddhism naturalized – The radical event of the 21 century

Zizek views buddhism as the call of suspension to all events, for only in letting go of such human  events can one attain Nirvana. The whole idea of eliminating suffering is only done through shifting how we perceive it, and I do agree with zizek on this,  why eliminate suffering while it is at the very core of our essence, like the chapter before, all extreme concepts come hand in hand. Hence the global shift towards the elimination of suffering leads us to the elimination of life (remember Huxley, Brave new world when the main character leaves the new technological world to go back to living in the wild ) this is why zizek argues Buddhism has become a rather popular religion nowadays, this separation of human life does fit our our lives of developed technology and science. In this chapter zizek demonstrates how modern life is derived from its substance. Simply zizek addresses the radical change that occurred after the discovery of brain science (From example psychologists nowadays tend to prefer behavioral methods rather than psychoanalytical methods)

Stop 4: The three events of philosophy

connection 4.1: Truth hurts, the pure event.

Plato, is zizek’s first philosophical event. If I understand correctly zizek reverses plato’s even so famous text on shadows in the cave, he makes the shadows the actual reality and the world outside that the believer went out to is what we live in. hence when we are confronted with reality, we are shocked, because we usually think that the world has more rainbows than it really does. Zizek gives reality this very sharp look (like oscar wilde’s portrait of dorian grey) yet he says that appearance and actuality are not always opposed. Hence our encounter with the real event is short yet pure.

connection 4.2 The eventual self, Ground zero

Zizek’s second philosophical event is Descartes, when is reality real, another way of interpreting the famous line of ‘I think therefore I am’ – not being a reader of Descartes myself I found this new approach rather nice-  A human (the subject) arises when this event takes place, hence the existence of a symbolic identity of the subject relies of the event ( in Descartes case the event of thinking) so looking from Descartes point of view he looked at humanity from point zero, and then built this human existence on an abstraction notion, this building itself is the event.

connection 4.3 Truth arises out of error

Hegel, explaining the event from the motion of crime, zizek begins at the essential morality of crime, the distortion of a notion leads to its birth in some sense. to reach truth we have to pass through error, leading to the idea that there is no right time to do things, since caution will leave us out of error and waiting too much will make us miss the event .

stop 5: The three event of psychoanalysis

connection 5.1 the poet confronts the thing

The difference between what you see and what it really is,  like some prior ideas, two events may at times come in coherently with each other, the poem and the event.

connection 5.2 The lover sees the symbol of god in his beloved

symbolic orders tends to be timeless, once you relate a concept to an object, it is as if this concept has always been here even before you realized it, it was we call in law a ‘revealing decision’ which is a decision that simply reveals a right or an obligation that was already there, on the contrary there is a decision that the right or obligation is born through, hence it never existed before. in the case of a symbolic order has always been here it is just that the event revealed it

connection 5.3 the madman imagines

We indulge in imaginative ideas to deal with the event. yet the pure event is still evident with its true terror, to accept that brutal terror and poetic trances are both pure events that life can embrace.

Stop 6. The undoing of an event

Which leads us  right back to stop 1, reading this chapter last night and going to class this morning, I caught up on a legal idea framing the last chapter. When two written commercial track books are presented by two traders, and they both fit the criteria of lawful evidence yet they contradict each other, they somehow delete each other, the legislator literally uses the work  (in a semi-translation) they both ‘collapse’. Zizek uses the example of embarking on immoral acts to achieve morality to reach the point of ‘undoing the event’

In the end zizek outlines some concepts in a few political events.

The writer’s notes on the book: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXqPlYWJSII

Frustrations over the obscene lack of perception

They live in an illusion, they believe it so deeply, I find the manifestation of the divine comedy hillarious. Then it hits me, what if my most sacred feelings are also an illusion like theirs, would I let go of my illusion, even when its my most sacred belief?

I refused to believe their illusions and found a big world of my own, I learnt to take curiosity over the warmth of their illusions, until I found my own sacred haven.

They live their whole lives never knowing, infuriating as it is, it causes me the greatest of my confusions.

I swear I can not hold my laugh back, the dark comedy we live in, and that we create for each other is simply to overwhelming for me to cry over, wars, fighting, restrictions, taboos, enslavement, obedience. all done for the sack of beliefs in the unseen. whether its patriocracy, fame, money, religion, we allow ourselves to feel too much, indulge in the peace of the unseen, paint it as we wish, glorify it we wish, to express our frustration with the inferiority of what we have, we need to feel.

Back to Nietzsche, who says we will let go of these illusions and become the last men, the human factor in us disappears with their disappearance. It is rather true, once you have no cause, no belief, once you settle with what you have been handed and try to feel with your body not your heart, you become one of the last men.

I do not know if my sacred belief is an illusion, yet I refuse to let go. And while I know that some of the beliefs of others are frustratingly confusing with their obscenity.

Do we choose to live in the world that H.G. wells describes, where our main conflicts become the core of our prima facie , we become somewhat peaceful yet emotionless. Is stopping at an illusion letting go of life’s quest, or is it grabbing on to its quest? or are our illusions irrelevant in our quests of curiosity if they are not hurdles to who we are?The freedom of feelings may drive us mad, yet the control of our feelings, and judging one another for our beliefs destroys us. For now all I ask of all these believers is not to meddle with my own belief, cause maybe then I am achieving my own quest. Not to let go of our illusions, but to grant everyone a chance to find their own beliefs may make the world an inch more sane.

From Autism to realism, is confusion.

Yet, I believe.

ibt

Redefining ethics

Morality – as I was told in kindergarten – is living as if god is watching you in your most lonesome moments, in that corner in your mind where light rare;y ever seeps, god is always with you.

God is within you. Gibran told me when I grew up.

Zizek says that if you need a god to be moral, be religious. yet if you have the ability to have morality without a god, do not be. (not exact words)

F.X. Messerschmidt

There is a sound of truth to what he says, coming from a religious community I understand the peace that ‘simply believing’ bestows upon a person. You do not do wrong cause god is watching, you do not fear life as much cause god is protecting you and so on. Seeing that I am planning to limit my thoughts to ethics and morality at the moment, and at the same time talk in theory rather than discuss social dilemmas. In true religion, you find a basis for ethics, and a motive to be moral from the inside, to ascend your humanity from the lows of animals to the majesty of civilized men. Yet what if we leave god, religion, and holy scriptures? what if we roam the streets residing Nietzsche’s words; “god is dead”?

This is where Nietzsche stopped, after ‘the death of god’ to him, how can we build the morality of human beings? on which grounds? is it the same grounds on which the holy scriptures were based upon yet now with a reasonable explanation?  I believe that the world stopped at ‘god is dead’ two centuries ago, and after that how our morality evolved is by all means another chapter of the divine comedy ‘the godless world’ where capitalism took in and all humans worked for is their own good, for a few generations now, this is the morality we have been fed, aspire to your own good, succeed, find your own peace. Even in religious communities like mine where I do truly believe that this philosophy of ‘the death of god’ took the same turn as it did in communities where god really did die, they simply made the scriptures adapt to the newly found goal of ‘your own good’, communities like mine as I always say are stripped from moral values, once their god is dead, no moral basis could be found inside the core of the community.

It’s true that since Nietzsche’s scream of ‘the death of god’, and for a while before his scream, humanity evolved greatly, setting limits at each stage and crossing these limits with each new boundary we break. it is a marvel what we have been up to ever since that scream. yet on the other hand, since that scream we shed blood in countless wars, and degraded humans, until now, there are 7 billion of them, when more than half suffer bad living conditions. if there is truly a god who has not died out there, these tsunamis and disasters are the echo of his laughter.

We still stand at the edge of the same question, how to redefine ethics? do we really need a text book to follow? to be honest I think we might do, most of the community are working masses not revolutionary thinkers who are in search for ethical values, human nature is the same, then why not restrain it in the same laws? Here comes up the two facts I found swarming in my mind 1-without god people see no point of ethics and morals 2-what basis is there for what is right and wrong. why would anyone care what is right or wrong, we now run on the basis of the words of Adam smith’s philosophy in life; do what is in your interest, and if for example your interest requires that you be good to people .. do it (again not exact words) I find this to be the most dangerous idea to ever step into my mind, it has caused me so much bewilderment, so much questioning of one’s self, and one’s motives.

Okay, so I believe we need ethics to ascend with our humanity, on Nietzsche’s scale of animal and god, we should be closer to god than to animal. hence I call the project of redefining ethics, and this leads me to the question on whether to base them on the ethical standards of religion that we lived by for so long, or should we really just assemble and test new values, what if these values in the end are as the same as religion’s?

Yes, I know that there is a difference between morality and ethics, and morality is what I should be speaking of, yet when i observe the society, I see a bundle of their ethics, not morality. On any case, it is a wonder in my mind, these small things we do, how do we build an inner cause, to never hurt a human, to ascend in our humanity till we are worthy of the earth we walk upon, should we tear all we know apart and start anew? to have a built in morality till we no longer question why we do things, till its no more right or wrong, but a built in god-ness.

what if it is too late?

 

Quite

This morning as I walked, I dreamt.
What if the picture froze, and only a two things moved, wouldn’t the illusion of the movement still make us think it’s moving?
Walking, what if the world was empty of humans, if no future existed and no beings existed, if all men simply disappeared and their loud repetitive voices went away. What if they left all history to rest in eternal quietness. What if the air no longer receive their CO2 . What if I was alone in a world with no future, only a past, a world without a sound or a movement, only the stillness of rocks. To contemplate what my race has built, what my race has done, to rethink the what ifs in our history. To simply dive into the richness that we have built, to get lost in the woods we still have no touched, and to enter every single house and know every single story, to kiss every sea shore, and to hear the echo of a pen’s drop.
A kingdom of isolation, silence. I would take a car and just drive,
To Damascus, an old park across the street from al hameedie, the to Iran inside the houses, in Italy I would break in the Vatican, in Ghana I would worship earth, and in Greenland I would wait for the sun.
Then again, why travel?
What if I had that silence here, now. For them to disappear, so that my world would overwhelm reality. So that earth may be my mind, and I no longer a slave.

Is being suicidal wrong?

What is the definition of ‘being suicidal’ or to rephrase the question is it ethical to be so deeply attached to life?
Whether its morals, religion, empathy, greater good, not being materialistic.
Life as we all know gives hell to everyone and gives pleasure to everyone, it varies, but it’s bound to give you both along the way, its an endless cycle of both, if you die young or old you don’t control it, but what if reality just doesnt seem so appealing? Why are we so attached to life?
I am not sharing suicidal thoughts, however why is it that in history it is ethical, moral, and admired when you sacrifice your life for the greater good, when you jump into the fire for the sake of the cause even though you won’t live to see the victory of your cause. Can’t we say that these men and women were suicidal, reading Che Guevara’s diaries, most of the people starting the Cuban revolution had no attachments to life, they gave their life up for the cause,yet is it possible that they have already took a shot in a peaceful easy going life and failed? isnt that suicidal?
Yet we consider them heroes … Thanks to the change they made the lives of thousands are better.
So back to the question, why fight for the idea of ‘being alive’ and forget the quality of what is inside, why are we so attached to living regardless of everything?
Wait you are still getting me wrong..
Suicide itself is wrong, taking your life before nature decides to do it, that point is not debatable, yet what is debatable is the willingness to de attach ourselves from life, haven’t these people just gave up on all that is in life, if I die then I die for a cause, if I live, then C’est la vie. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Looking at the point of view of a psychologist and a point of view of a patriot.
Thus I ask the question, is it unethical so deeply attached to your own life?
To be continued after further speculation.

The genius behind Les Miserables in the 21 century.

I am reaching, but I fall
And the night is closing in
And I stare into the void
To the whirlpool of my sin
– Les Miserables musical – What Have I Done

The following ideas are based on the recent adaptation of Victor Hugo’s les miserables.

Have images in technology increased our emotions or robbed us of their purity? are we allowed to relate to the pain in les miserables while portraying our own lives, or is it not our right for we do not gothrough such circumstances. Are we allowed to view our lives in this so called manner of drama? or is it the fast pace of our lives and the increase of shallow experiences that leaves no space for such strong emotions?

Victor Hugo’s genius of the 19th century, A story of many lives, of redemption, sin, poverty, revolution, despair, wealth, love, death …. simply of life.

From a contemporary point of view, where such obvious images are no longer to be seen, what is the redefinition of misery in a world where people spend their hours on GTA and ipads? those human feelings and despairs. why do we still relate to les miserables in the twenty first century unless the genius behind the description of Hugo are not merely for the people of 19th century france, but of the human nature as a whole. Hugo is not telling a story but merely illustrating the twists of being human. This article maybe a look at Hugo’s genius on human nature, and yet be a critique of the state of man in the twenty first century.

What have I done?
Sweet Jesus, what have I done?
Become a thief in the night
Become a dog on the run
And have I fallen so far
And is the hour so late
That nothing remains but the cry of my hate?
The cries in the dark that nobody hears,
-Valjan’s cries for redemption in the musical (Valjean’s Soliloquy)

A subject that interests all men even with our converse shoes and our ragged  jeans,  We all have some symptoms of psychological problems in our behavior, however you are not diagnosed with a syndrome unless you have most of its symptoms for a consistent time, ofcourse alot of the syndromes are connected to your surrounding environment. It is the same with human feelings and thoughts if I may say so, we all have those small neurological sparks, yet who has the circumstances for them to arise, will see it manifest in a way or another. In a philosophical manner Gibran argues on criminals and their motives:

And when one of you falls down he falls for those behind him, a caution against the stumbling stone.
Ay, and he falls for those ahead of him, who though faster and surer of foot, yet removed not the stumbling stone.

to read his whole idea on crime and punishment refer to:  http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/gibran/prophet/prophet.htm#Crime

He basically says that we all have a criminal in us it is just that who has the circumstances for that spark to take fire. He also says that every criminal has to be punished yet not out casted, same with valjan in les mis, he was punished yet all he asked for after was acceptance, that after the day is done he is as human as any of us.
On the refusal of other to accept a criminal’s redemption in les mes:

I’ve hunted you across the years
A man like you can never change
A man such as you.

Javer – Confrontation

As Fantine also says in the musical:

Is there anyone here
Who can swear before God
She has nothing to fear?
She has nothing to hide?

– Fantine, at the end of the day

Most of the characters in the book have committed a wrong in one manner or the other yet the writer does not judge them as sinners, but tells their stories of misery.
on a side note the idea of god was linked to redemption, goodness and love.

Valjan’s questions on who he is when he is faced with a choice of having a man take the blame for him or facing the unjust system of law,

If I speak, I am condemned.
If I stay silent, I am damned!

In his case this is one scene and one point in life, but isn’t this scene the reason why he asked the question that has always been on his mind? The circumstances the reason behind his realization are separate from the fact that this question is a built in inquiry, the un-oiled  door that makes a squeaking voice each time you open it. the question that floats in your mind every day yet you never catch it until a certain circumstance shines upon you.

Is the pain felt by Eponine over not being with the man she loves equivlant to the pain of a woman lost in poverty and dragged to prostitioun, or a man fighting for his country? is there a scale for misery, that hugo used for all his miseries or is this misery less cause its only related to her? well Hugo does kill her after all.

At the end of the day you’re another day older
And that’s all you can say for the life of the poor
It’s a struggle, it’s a war
And there’s nothing that anyone’s giving
One more day standing about, what is it for?
One day less to be living.

Poverty and war are two words that only cease to exist in Utopia, However what if these lines were not said by the poor, don’t we all feel this at points. it is ironic how a woman with alot of show of emotions is described as a ‘drama queen’ in our days, and how such reactions by these women are simply a manifest from movies and series seen on tv, our reality has become a blend with technology up to the point were reality is void due to questionings of its stand point. It is a rather confusing matter, are movies our small outbursts of these emotions and ideas that are built in our minds?

An Idea that may be separate yet related to a point to the subject, it is said that the chemicals produced in the mind while watching a horror movie would greatly resemble those produced if the ‘horror’ scene was a part of reality, I find that fact rather wonderous, you can feel love but a love directed at a screen , you can feel fear while you are safe, you can go through a revolution while sitting on your couch staring at a samsung 3D TV these simulated feelings do make the lives of the masses more stable I must agree with that, keeps us from actually going through the bad situations that do arise the bad feelings demonstrated in les mes, but on the other hands, do we want simulated feelings of love? simulated feelings of joy? and not feel the purity of these feelings in reality. Hugo has demonstrated human feelings and ideas brilliantly which is why we can still relate to them now, for all of these sparks are a part of us.

“The power of a glance has been so much abused in love stories, that it has come to be disbelieved in. Few people dare now to say that two beings have fallen in love because they have looked at each other. Yet it is in this way that love begins, and in this way only.”
― Victor Hugo

“Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me?
Somewhere beyond the barricade is there a world you long to see?
Do you hear the people sing?
Say do you hear the distant drums?
There is a life about to start when tomorrow comes!

Aaaaahhhh!
Tomorrow comes!”
-Epilogue
we grew up to these stories, ideas and mythologies that we overlooked the true description behind these tales, it is true that Hugo tried to end with hope, and lightened the world on cosette, yes as a normal reader I would call that ‘cheesy’ our contemporary writings over look the simplified aspect of life, hugo ended with hope cause that is how we all go on, through all the sorrow we might face, we always end up feeding on hope, even when its imaginary, even if its for others, yet it the only whip the makes us run to the next day. it might be debatable but Hugo illustrated death as peace not darkness, his characters took refugee in the end of hope, we may say that Hugo was cruel for his characters were living in misery yet fed on hope.

I will cry with more misery than all, for the real human feelings have come to fade. and thier existance a source of humor to other humans.

To simply give in.

Is it wrong to believe in fate? To sing Que sera sera?
To simply accept everything as meant to be?
Does this not make us believe that we are the centre of the world? Does this make us fight less for what we want, give up and then use fate as a shield against our souls?
In fate you might find comfort knowing that what ever you missed was not yours to begin with, however in fate you might also not fight for getting what you missed.
And then one must ask if I am breathing at this moment, what is the point of what has gone, of what I missed?
And at other times one’s heart aches for what it has missed.
Oh, god.