Wherever

Just a few observations I've made since Sunday. Most of which, I'm fairly certain I've probably read, saw or heard this from somewhere else and should be credited to other people's imaginations, but eh, they already probably have enough fame and riches... After all, they've gotten me to watch, listen and/or see them.

So here's what I've got:

• There was a discussion about what song you want to have played at your funeral - We care so much about image, that it still makes a difference to us, despite the fact that we'd be dead and chances are, not be able to listen to the song, nor be able to see people's reactions when they see the depth and emotion brought forward with the tune. Is it vanity to the extreme? Are we so concerned about how we want to go, leave and be remembered, that we must ensure that people listen to a sad song in our funeral? I'm tempted to make my funeral song "Hiphopopotamus vs. Rhymnoceros" by Flight of the Conchords in opposition to this trait of wanting to be remembered in a solemn and awesome fashion. Great song, though, lots of live from me to the Flight of the Conchords. NOTE: For people who choose songs as a final message to loved ones: It seems a valid argument enough. Good call.
  
  
• Found out that in 2008, the VCAA extended the Year 12 (final year of high school over here) Chemistry curriculum. And now the exam in 2007 was roughly 12 pages. Last year it was around 30, apparently. My friends and I determined they did this perhaps because the average score of Chemistry was too high, and they blamed it on the easiness of the exams, and so they've made it longer to spread and make a nicer bell curve to rank people. Question is this, if the exam is harder, yes it does fairly spread out and meters the intelligence better for the rankings... But a common complaint is that the exam is too long and people can't finish - So is it fair to judge people on their speed? If someone writes slowly and punches numbers into their calculator slower, are they less skilled and can this be held against them? On a more general scale: Can speed of mental processing be used as a determiner for how intelligent a person is?
  
  
• How wrong is suicide? Contemplating the issue. In a society that generally teaches atheism, and at most, agnosticism; therefore can we not conclude there is no purpose to the universe? If so, then why is there sanctity for life? I've said that hedonism is the end result for a purpose in life, if one thinks it through properly and believes in atheism. However, the underlying question for all this is: Why are we expected to have morals and ethics? Why should others demand conformity for our tastes and fetishes? Of course, that's based on my view on what atheism leads to, and belief that people who are atheist and still think there is a purpose in a universe haven't thought about it properly. Although, I still embrace the idea of blissful ignorance. Altruism, morals and beliefs are some of the fundamental things that allow much of society to function and survive, so why take it away, even if it is wrong?
  
  
• Watched the latest episode of QI and it discussed humour and the theories for it, and why certain types of jokes and humour makes us laugh. Imagined if another sentient species developed, would they share the same sense of humour? A common reason given for a sense of humour to exist in individuals is that it acts as good trait to have in a species that lives in communities. But would things we find atrocious, stupid, boring, bland and paradoxical be hilarious to another sentient species? Of course, this is a bit of the big, big, big discussion over the traits, personalities and the physiological, structural and behavioural features of a sentient species that evolved on another planet, similar or dissimilar to ours.
  
  
• On a more personal note, had a small talk with the tres sympa Noriyuki AKA November, and I realised (and probably much to his chagrin) that after a short monologue, that I am easily attached to characters that are either very flawed (and most of the time, still very awesome) or characters that are perfect but lose ultimately. On the other end of the scale, I don't like (not necessarily hate) characters that are perfect and don't lose. An example of a character I love is V from V for Vendetta. Poetic, charismatic, intelligent and amazing - Yet he dies for his cause, and it doesn't necessarily bring the peace he wants instantly, and we never find out if the peace does come true. A character I don't share much love for is Lelouch of Code Geass. He only died because he wanted to, and everything somehow works because of that. At least in Watchmen, Ozymandias realised that the shit he did was possibly in vain. I found that out of the characters I enjoy reading, watching or listening follow this trait: Gregory House, Scorch, V, L, Light, Antigone, Murray Hewitt, Dorian Gray, Henry Wotton and so many more...

That's it. Not many, and most of them quite bland. In fact, these issues constantly pop up in my head, but because of various events, they've came up again and now I have this blog that CB stupidly but graciously has given me, I've written it down and will post it after the following lines:

Sorry if you've read that. It was appalling, self-centred and as usual, highly pretentious and probably has quite a few grammatical and spelling errors, feel free to point them out if you find them. But if you went through it all, I cannot express how much I love you. Thank you so, so much. Let's go on a date ASAP.

If that was too strong a move onto you, I apologise again, and finish before any further socially awkward moments surface by saying you've pretty much finished reading Mentioning Monday: A Collection.