Thoughts in the weekend....

I just wanted to have a drink. Really, I had no intentions of watching it. I knew what would happen if I did, but nevertheless, when I switched on the TV and Bicentennial Man was showing, I just had to sit down and watch, from start till finish. OH of course, there were the moments, I felt like crying through most of them, I don't know why. Maybe because they were really touching or maybe because they were so touching I realized such wonder was beyond my reach; love, perfect family, actually achieving one's goals.

But of course, the main point was that the message it conveys.

"I would rather die a man, than live forever as a machine."

I can agree more to that. You see, I read once from somewhere that said 'Man is the measure of all things', and I have to say there is some truth to that. I don't know about aliens and those beyond Earth, but for all the life on this planet, as extremely utterly unique as ALL of them maybe, there is nothing on this here planet comparable to human beings. We are the only species capable of making ourselves into whatever we chose, or utterly destroy ourselves as well. I find it a thouroughly interesting thing that a machine, as such in the movie, can learn AND achieve the things we covet most in life; love, wealth, freedom, purpose of living. I don't know if I can ever be thus, such things are to me beyond my grasp; take love for example, I find it a futile attempt to actually pursue it, because like it or not, if I want someone, I would have to compromise, and in this matter I cannot...nay, will not, compromise. It's all or nothing.

But enough of love, I have indulged in that fickle matter previously a hundred times over. Nay, what interests me is the concept of freedom. Freedom is one ambigous concept to which its literal interpretation varies from different people, yet has been the driving force behind so many people to struggle for it, even going through terrible wars to achieve it. I would like to think that individuals wanting freedom is a worldwide concept, but in truth I have looked upon it and found out that it is not. Freedom is universal today because those who had originally championed the cause have spread their influence globally. Globalization might as well be Westernization because as we all become more alike, we are becoming so by adopting mostly western concepts.

Freedom was championed by the western civilizations since its conception in ancient Greek city states, where unique in the known world then, individual freedom and rights was officially and politically acknowledged. I hate to admit it but looking at other places beyond Greece (even northern Europe at the time) there was no such thing. One person may trample on another or his rights or property merely by being stronger or powerful. In other advanced cultures, the people then adhere to strict obligation and loyalty to the ruler or ruling body to which the latter in turn can do as they please, trampling on what we today would say the rights of an individual, merely on the charge of the former displeasing the latter.

Let's take a look at a local folklore. Hang Tuah is false accused, ordered to be executed by the Sultan, and thus in the light of that injustice, his friend Hang Jebat rebelled against the monarch. The climax point was that Hang Tuah, ever loyal, fought against his friend in the name of the sultan. Thus, today, we are told that Hang Tuah was the hero, the champion, not because he won, but because he was loyal. That is our view. The Malay view perhaps, in which my point is to stress out the value we place on loyalty, and if I dare be frank, blind loyalty. If the story took place in the west, in Europe perhaps, this is what I gather they would view. The sultan is inept, and unjust in that he sentences people to be executed without fair trial, and that Hang Tuah easily allows what is suppose to be his rights trampled by his monarch. Hang Jebat will be hailed as the hero, for simply standing up against tyranny and willing to fight for one's rights. Now why is this critical?

Simple, firstly as perhaps mentioned before, when the two ideologies clashed, the latter who champions individual rights and freedom, wins. Don't believe me? Then why is it that it is the West who have conquered us and most of the world, and not any other? Secondly, it is not to point out western superiority, because I hate that fact too, perhaps not being on the superior side myself. But I do acknowledged their achievements and I can respect that, instead of blindly turning away and accusing them of being evil and corrupt without solid facts to support. No, the second point is that equality, individual uniqueness and the great importance it could contribute to society should be embraced, and not supressed. We must understand that the only person truly responsible for our well being is ourselves, and we must work for it, not merely place that responsibility in another's hands.

I admit that the west, and its concept of capitalism, which of course promotes individual success and thus further promotes the fortunate instead of the unfortunate most of the time, may not be the most moral of concepts. I guess there is a balance to everything I guess, but the fact of the matter is, would you prefer to be poor amidst great tycoons but nevertheless having th same freedoms and rights as they do, or would you prefer all out economic equality, in which the true power only lies in the hands of the select few, and in turn your own rights differs from the ruling body, or if ay rights exists at all to you, in their eyes? Striving the balance of equality, individualism, morality and progress is a very tricky matter, and for that I am no whiz to suggest any miracular solutions. But I do say this, individualism is not wrong, and that freedom is everyones rights, and above all we must think, not blindly put faith in what others say.

Okay lastly, going off topic from that, something I found out recently in RTS gaming, typically there is 3 different types of players; Rushers, Turtle, and Boom. (Boom I think are the money crazy people) As a rule like rock-paper-scissors, Rushers will almost always beat Boomers because quick assaults can easily defeat greedy people who spread out their lines without adequate protection so as to quickly grab as much loot as quickly as they can. Boomers in turn will beat turtle players, because they gain accessto plentiful resources to build whaever they want against a player who is slowly running out of resource and can't progress well. Turtle players in turn, having solid defenses from the start will almost always beat rushers, who have to rely on cheap early units and in not too plentiful a quantity.

Well that's it for today. I think I've typed enough.