Saturday, June 09, 2007
How important are looks and background? Looks here is not so much about how good looking but more of appearance. Is there a set look for certain professions? How would you react when you have or see a university lecturer or professor with multiple facial piercings or tattoos? Would you disregard them and take them less serious? How would you react to someone who used to work in a stripper's joint or someone who works as a manager of a brothel?
How about ladies who look like supermodels working as a delivery person (like DHL) or in the construction site. Children whom are home schooled or families with stay at home dads?
How would you react when you see a priest who dresses sloppily or when mass starts late for no apparent reason. Or even because the priest is late because he was caught in traffic or something. Would we pass judgment on such people because they do not fit the perception or stereotypes that we have cast upon them? Or do we accept them for who they are? How would society on the whole accept them?
he spoke at 6:32 pm
Thursday, June 07, 2007
I think that humans are fearful of change. Maybe fearful is too strong a word; fascinated might be a better one. I mean you look at the number of phrases or words that you can attribute to change. There are for example 'sea change', 'turn over a new leaf', 'new chapter', 'turn the tide', 'nostalgia' etc.
I think that the fascination is probably linked to the uncertainty that comes with it because it denotes that leaving of one's comfort zone and into 'unchartered' waters. Maybe that is the reason why we always need to document the past so that we can reminisce it in the present or in the future. Maybe that is what attracts people to photographs; because it allows people a snapshot and accurate representation of the past. Accurate in the sense of what was seen from behind the lense and not necessarily historically or factually accurate. Afterall, there are people who argue that photography is a reminder and representation of one's loss and (impending) death.
Is it then not sad that we are in that sense living in the past? Phrases like 'history is behind us' and 'lesson learned' are constant reminders that we are 'slaves' to the past and that we can never get really move forward without looking back; we are in fact bound by the past and the past will dictate the future. How odd and paradoxical it is.
Is it possible then that we can break free from this bond to the past? Can we finally stop looking back and really look forward? Can we stop documenting the past and present so that we can look back into them in the future? What consequence would it have on the future? I think it would just leave such a void that will make the future wonder what happened during that time. They would just think that somehow, time have forgotten about this part of history. But then, by looking back and searching for answers, the era that did not document had already committed the 'wrong' that they thought they had tried to 'put right'. By choosing to omit documenting, they had in a way made it a must to find out what had happened.
Is it also this fixation that drives us to want to dream or like to dream? That is because only in dreams can we really live out the past, present and future at the same time. Photographs, diaries, videos can only remind us of the past but in our dreams and imagination, we can live it out and make the very decisions that we never thought possible; we can live out that photograph once more.
he spoke at 7:31 pm