AVATAR

Medium is amazing. 3-D IMAX is an entertaining experience which can make you dizzy sometimes.
Plot develops as expected, being executed in Hollywood's classic fashion.
One feeling sympathy to the cause of those blue creatures must ask themselves what's happening in the jungles of west Papua or perhaps Brazil. Poor indigenous chaps there, should they be blue or do they need a 3-D narration to help their cause ?
If we film news in a more emotionally stimulating way, would we have larger audiences ?
Isn't it all about "medium is the message" ?
one interesting scene was the first contact of our human and his creature lover in their real existence...I wonder if the Avatar of our man dies, would they still continue love each other in their different forms of existence ? Also, does our man fall in love with the physical abilities of his Avatar ? (as he is disabled in his human body) Some Lacanian questions emerge there...

home and wife

digimodernism - a book to explore?

my answer to Tim Andrews on Fetish of Happiness.

PS: I agree with you but be better to foot your thoughts on the law of physics.
PPS: I am writing this notes to top coz I realised I am not a good writer who carries his reader to the end of his words and I have some flaws in my argument. So I wanted to make the point on the very top of my text.

I know scientists hate us drawing links in between their findings and philosophy but if we believe that there is a universality in the laws of physics and us be a part of this universe from our pure existence, I think we have to look deep into the laws of physics sometimes to justify our thoughts, philosophy for life.
I also want to keep this short.
The second law of thermodynamics tells us the energy in the universe tends to a state of order where there will be no matter, thus the end of everything. (-273 degrees celcius) in closed systems which means there is no input from an external energy source. The electrons will always move from "hot" to colder one until reaching a point of balance at that "end"
that movement of electrons gives its "life" to the universe. When that movement will stop everything will end.
when there will be no opposites, everyone will be happy, and dead.
For our world, it is safe as long as sun shines above us.
For our society it is almost impossible to have a homogenous state of soul too but we can get close to it by an immense propaganda inequavial to the one carried out by Nazis.
There is energy in conflict, when there are opposing sides in the soul.
More poles you have, there is a higher velocity of exchange, thus a life more than vegatative existence.
Globalising happiness might be an utopian goal for some and it won't happen. The globalisation is a domain only accessible to us living in the advantaged societies. In these societies, we are trying to zero the possibility of any conflict by making everyone happy. With drugs and externally imposed reference points. When we will, somehow, catch the state of sheer happiness, this will be a dead society. So those in power will run their horses in the free plains of their own benefits without any resistance.
There is also the catch phrase of pursuit of happiness. Lacanian critique to this would be a reference to his object of petite desire.
You can at most get close to happiness, the moment you would call yourself happy would be a representation of your state of happiness thus only an image of it - unfullfilling version - not the real one. Let them explicitly tell us how happy they are every time they play nintendo wii with their friends after a dinner party over a glass of wine.

Friend's blog...

http://paslitrompet.blogspot.com/

mainly Turkish...but there is a universality as well.
recommended.

Australia- the movie

Finally, I watched the movie. One of the things I felt obliged to do before leaving Australia. It was a good entertainment with too many cliches and bad lines. Gut-wrenching bits were the references to stolen generation and white Australia policies. Nicole Kidman has some funny lines but I think she's been around so long, has been consumed so much by Australian media that I had the perception of her as a media celebrity trying to act.
It was, as if watching my sister acting.
Of course than you are being dragged away from her performance. She should not appear this much on around. She should remain in the silver-screen, exclusive to that domain.
Can this be a haunting diseases lurking for celebrities in the info-tainment era of the media ?
Like, how can I watch any Tom Cruise movie without remembering his Scientology stints ?
The excessive reproduction of an actor or actress's image on media must have some negative correlation with her/his ability to carry audiences away with the plot on the screen.

Finally...

after seeing a friend's blog, I decided to start my own, similar to his format. shorter texts. reflections in various different form of mediums. I will share what I like and think about things.
let's see how long will I keep this one going...